http://www.indystar.com/article/2010080 … ed-victims
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld … 9522.story
The hits just keep on coming. Members should be so proud.
I'm not making the connection, please elaborate.
"...He did not have details of the firearm used in the attack except that it was an assault-style rifle, “an AK or SKS....”
so... it likely wasn't a legal weapon...
and the second one doesn't mention the firearm in question at all.
So, sure, you can hate the right to own guns... but... The NRA seems to be completely clear of any wrong doing.
U can own an AK in the U.S. U just can't have it assembled with any of the stuff that would make it useful should anarchy arise or the need to throw off a corrupt, hegemonic government that seeks to overstep it's authority and ignore its original mandate and founding principles as set down in, say, a Constitution or something in that order. But you can have one.
Actually, you can legally own an AK. The rifle has to be semi-auto, not full auto. Same applies to the SK.
Oh sure, it's the because of guns all those people were killed. Nothing to do with race at all! He called his victims racists even though he never filed a complaint. He was caught on surveillance camera stealing beer and that was the reason he was being fired. Any reasonable person would have been thankful that they weren't going to be arrested, but no, this man called his victims racist and killed them. I wonder where he got that idea? Could it have come from the left accusing everyone that oppose them racist? Or Obama implying racism was at fault in the action of the Cambridge police arrest of professor gates?
Maybe, just maybe it's not the fault of guns but of the hate stirred up by the left against their opposition.
Yes, they should because of the rare case where a handgun actually prevents a robbery. And for their efforts which result in the election of right win, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-government whackjobs.
Those New Englanders really know how to rebel.
Throwing tea into Boston Harbor.
Shooting up colleagues at a Budweiser plant.
Any excuse for a part-ay.
BTW, as well all know, Connecticut is the CONSTITUTION state!
Same thing would happen if guns were banned. Because like drugs, you can still buy them if they are illegal.
So the only thing different in these two stories would be "shooter had an illegal gun, no idea how he got it".
The NRA is not responsible for these murders. The perpetrators who pulled the triggers are responsible.
Inferring that the NRA is responsible for gun-related crimes is like saying that the National Beer Wholesalers Association is responsible for all the instances of vehicular manslaughter that are caused by drivers abusing alcohol.
Both inferences are pretty illogical, right? In case you're not sure, the answer is - yes, they are!
What happened to personal responsibility for committing crimes? Let's blame the evil lobbys and let the real criminals walk. While they're out roaming the streets, I'll proudly renew my NRA membership and keep my handgun loaded in the drawer next to my bedside table.
This whole thread stinks. Ron, you basically used a tragedy just to make points against conservatives. Was that really necessary?
We have no evidence that the shooters in either incident were conservatives.
When you guys down south finish shooting each and everyone of your fellow citizens, can you let me know?
I would love to get some free beachfront property in California.
Well CT has beaches too, so I guess you'll have two places to pick over and get that real estate deal.
The more fanatical among you have succeeded in infusing a gun-welding reality on American society that is supported by an archaic Constitutional provision which has lost all meaning in today’s modern world.
The right to bare arms may have made sense 200 years ago, but for such a provision to make any sense in today’s world, then you best amend the Constitution to allow citizens to arm themselves with every single advanced military weapon needed (not just guns) to defeat a tyrannical government bent on taking away your rights.
Keep this fascination with guns and shooting yourselves, and one day when you have destroyed each other,we Canadians together with our Mexican brothers will build upon your land a peaceful taco-loving, hockey-playing society that will be the envy of the world!
You don't have to wait, we'll spread the word south of our border that Canada's borders are totally open for them, in fact if we can get our government to send you all our illegals, not just the ones from Mexico, you'll have your peaceful taco-loving, hockey-playing society that will be the envy of the world as soon as possible.
Good idea, you can ship them over with the illegal guns that already cross our border
Great, we'll have our pres talk with your PM to arrange it. I'm sure that Canada will do away with the point system. And we'd like to get our illegal guns back but there seems to be Canadians who keep hiding it from us.
Am I "fanatical" because I believe differently than you on this? And is the whole Constitution "archaic" or only the parts you don't agree with? You still good with freedom of speech and assembly and stuff, or shall we toss that off too since it's kind of old?
Your point about allowing advanced weapons is on target, just leading you to the wrong conclusion, in my opinion: we do need to be allowed to have modern weaponry to keep in the spirit of the rule (which we should keep; it was a wise and intelligently made decision to include that, and one based on reality not Utopian dreams).
We don't need helicopter gunships and F21s (the colonists didn't get to have Frigates and Brigantines either)but we do need rifles in keeping with the times. If you have a look at Iraq and Afghanistan you will see that despite all our helicopters and planes and tanks etc., we've had a hell of a time throwing off resistance over the course of nearly ten years and we have a massive percentage of their populace trying to help us (or at the very least not working against us). All the resistance has are rifles and homemade bombs.
Furthermore, our military didn't have the same reservations about collateral damage over there that they would here because, while they tried to avoid civilian casualties there, if it happened, well, it wasn't THEIR mom or sister, it was people in a foreign country. That is a huge emotional difference in the motivation and morale of the troops. Nobody is going to kill their neighbors and countrymen for long. Not the boots on the ground soldier types. That's the kind of decision only power mongers make.
My point is not to say our guys are mean, but I assure you, U.S. military, 25-year-old young people, are going to have a much harder time dropping bombs on a neighborhood in Houston or Detroit or Seattle than they are some Taliban nest in Kandahar. So, a U.S. populace that wanted to throw off failed and corrupt government (us throwing off a corrupt government if it came to that--exactly the reason for the ammendment) we could do so more easily than the Afghans can throw out a foreign force (us invading them.. and only a small portion of them are fighting us and giving us grief - think what a whole outraged domestic populace could do). Afghanistan did it to the Soviets too (although nobody wanted them there, so it was easier).
It's not a fascination, its a recognition that power tends to accumulate over time and overstep its mandate. It always has in every single human regime/dynasty/empire whatever you want to call it, always. Every, single time. WIthout fail. Always. The framers of the Constitution knew it and they took steps to make OURS one that could fix itself. Calling it an "archaic document" to me says that you completely and totally miss the genius of it.
This is such a tired old liberal mantra,
The NRA makes everyone shoot people, except of course criminals that we can excuse because of their poor upbringing and illegal aliens because they really didn’t want to run drugs or kidnap and murder people. They just wanted to cut grass and pick vegetables because Americans won’t do it, but they are forcing them out, so they have to do something to earn all that contribution money for Liberal political campaigns.
Give it a break, its old, it’s tired, and oh by the way, it doesn’t work! It never did.
Haven’t you all learned yet that each time you try this old crap, Gun Ownership rights and the support for them gets stronger?
And for the naïve, there will be oceanfront property for sale very soon in Arizona.
"Am I "fanatical" because I believe differently than you on this?"
No.. you are fanatical if you disagree with me on anything... you know that Shadesbreath!
"We do need to be allowed to have modern weaponry"
Well, that might be suicidal, but at least you are right that it is in the spirit of the law. As for the inability for American soldiers to kill American citizens.. there have been a lot of civil wars that have been kinda violent(including your own).
"Calling it an "archaic document" to me says that you completely and totally miss the genius of it."
Come now, I never called the Constitution an archaic document.. I called the provision allowing for the right to bare arms archaic. You are right though, the Founding Fathers of your country created a document that would allow Americans to change laws over time. The right to bare arms should be one of those laws.
"the Founding Fathers of your country created a document that would allow Americans to change laws over time. The right to bare arms should be one of those laws."
The intent of that provision was to allow Americans to overthrow a tyrannical government or military bent on destroying their freedoms. It was written in light of the military and political situation 200 years ago.
If you want that intent to be applicable in today's modern world, you better legalize a whole bunch of more powerful military weaponry and basically turn the country into an arsenal.
Otherwise, all you are doing is put rapid fire killing machines in the hands of criminals and lunatics.. which was not the intent of the framers of the Constitution.
You seem to assume that the Military will follow political leaders.
My I remind you they swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution,
not follow a particular leader, especially one that appears bent on violating just about every tenant of the Constitution.
you seem to forget the little skirmish that took place in the 1860s
You seem to forget that not every US soldier remained loyal to the US.
a civil war is seldom an issue of black and white... they are bloody affairs, regardless of the reasons behind them. Families and allegiances are broken, with most people believing they are on the 'right' side
Anyone who thinks the the military reality of today in anyway mirrors that during the American Revolution is about 2oo years behind the times.
Do I? As I recall my history in that particular war, Southern born Officers resigned commissions and Soldiers left the ranks and joined their brethren, in fact entire divisions did so taking their arms with them.
yes.. divisions of military forces.. not groups of folks who had guns in the trunks
Ok, because our military has us outgunned we should give back our only means to keep us somewhat equal
Hmmmmmmmm, nah think I'll keep my gun because its better than a stick.
outgunned? Somewhat equal?
Do you think the US Army is a gang from the West side? lol
I'm not sure what you misunderstand.
They have superior firepower but I have some firepower.
Without it I am sure to become a slave, with it I might have a chance.
Very true. But perhaps the most pernicious effect of the NRA and gun fanatics is that they help get homophobes, libertarians, warmongers, racists, religious extremists, et al to public office.
I came from communistic Czechoslovakia. First what communists did was confiscated all weapons. They were afraid of revolt. Then they made nation country jail with 6000 Volts bob-wire around. They reasoned it so illegal intruders will not come in. But in reality legal citizens could not escape to West.
This country was founded because an inferior force defeated a superior force.
Maybe one has to be an American to understand.
There is a difference between an inferior force beating an superior force, and you and a bunch of friends with rifles taking on the American army.
Furthermore, the arms that you are stocking piling for this theoretical battle are being matched by your fellow citizens who would might very well take the opposite side (see Timothy McVeigh).
And as you stand vigilant waiting for the tanks to roll in, in the meantime thousands have already lost their lives or have suffered at the hands of gun wielding criminals.
If you REALLY want to assure that the government remains one of and for the people, you might want to stop the influence of lobby groups like the NRA.
Do you honestly think that the criminals are going out and giving all their identification and information and fingerprints and waiting a week and paying full retail price for their guns and then taking their weapons out and doing crime?
They don't willingly surrender their bags of crack.. but they are still charged if caught selling
What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
where are these criminals getting these guns?
Black market. A lot of the military grade ones come through Mexico, and there's a decent supply of stolen stuff too (which I'm sure you will point out are stolen only because they are available in households to begin--to which I will say, yes, and it is the existence of people breaking into house that proves the validity of having a gun at the ready to prune down those types of folks from society, etc.)
However, having been down this argument's road many times in the past, like arguments over abortion, God, gay marriage and everything else, people have opinions on this sort of thing that are entrenched and unmoving. So, I will just say, I understand your position completely, even acknowledge that it has a certain type of logic. I just believe differently and that your side of the argument gives up far more than it gains. I doubt you and I will ever agree on this one, so there's no point going on about it.
ah those Mexicans again!! lol
Let us agree to disagree then.. but I still maintain that fetuses should be allow to bare their arms (and other appendages) for the purposes of intimacy
LOL for sure. Fetal marriage should be an amendment right!
From legal gun dealers. There is a veritable gun pipeline from Virgnia to New York City.
"There is a difference between an inferior force beating an superior force, and you and a bunch of friends with rifles taking on the American army."
What you don't seem to get is me and my friends were trained by the American military, we learned a few things about how to defeat a superior force. We wont stand toe to toe with them, we will use guerrilla tactics. (see Vietnam,Afghanistan) This is all hypothetical I might add.
"Furthermore, the arms that you are stocking piling for this theoretical battle are being matched by your fellow citizens who would might very well take the opposite side (see Timothy McVeigh)."
First of all I am not stockpiling weapons I am exercising my right to keep and bare arms. Secondly, see above.
"And as you stand vigilant waiting for the tanks to roll in, in the meantime thousands have already lost their lives or have suffered at the hands of gun wielding criminals."
Nobody is standing vigilant waiting for tanks. Many a gun toting criminal has been laid to rest by gun wielding citizens.
"If you REALLY want to assure that the government remains one of and for the people, you might want to stop the influence of lobby groups like the NRA."
This must be a cultural thing, why would I want the only people lobbying for what I believe in to go away? Your advice is throw down your arms and succumb to the wishes of government, thats just about the craziest thing I have ever heard.
"What you don't seem to get is me and my friends were trained by the American military, we learned a few things about how to defeat a superior force. We wont stand toe to toe with them, we will use guerrilla tactics. (see Vietnam,Afghanistan) This is all hypothetical I might add."
.. well then you don't really need guns do you? I'm sure you will be resourceful enough to get the weapons required when the time comes
"First of all I am not stockpiling weapons I am exercising my right to keep and bare arms"
when does the right to bare arms become stockpiling? You are going to need more than one
"Many a gun toting criminal has been laid to rest by gun wielding citizens."
How many gun toting criminals have laid to rest innocent citizens who would otherwise not have died?
"Your advice is throw down your arms and succumb to the wishes of government, that's just about the craziest thing I have ever heard"
No.. my advice is to create a society as free as possible of rapid fire killing machines
"No.. my advice is to create a society as free as possible of rapid fire killing machines"
Throughout American history there are those civilians who stood up to oppression and fought it with just what they had. From the American revolution to the Texas battle of independence to the Civil war, civilians shaped this country not a military.
I don't know where you are and I don't expect you to understand who Americans are, but when it came to doing the impossible we did it through sheer willpower and resilience, we didn't do anything by giving up who we are, and the right to bare arms along with the rest of the constitution and bill of rights is who we are.
Laying down simply is not an option.
I got my degree in American history, so I do know a little bit about the past.
At one point, 'who you are' were slave owners who were not allowed to drink (or vote if you were a woman).
You got over those hurdles and survived OK
"At one point, 'who you are' were slave owners who were not allowed to drink (or vote if you were a woman)."
Just curious how many other countries were slave owners and oppressed women?
Surly America can't be the only one, but to hear people today talk about America you would think we still own slaves and oppress women.
And do you know how we became a nation of former slave owners?
By the barrel of a gun.
As some conservatives here know, I am a wacky far left liberal.
I firmly support the right to own and carry guns.
It is far too important to give up. I personally do not own any guns, but I am glad that my neighbors do.
i can't believe I have brought you two together!
Don't be silly. There is no hope for me. Remember, I'll be borrowing guns to defend gay rights, womans choice, taxing the rich and Big Government.
Wearing that wig you wont be fighting for long.
Good for you! I was going to add that MANY liberals support the 2nd amendment and own firearms. One is none other than hubber Randy Godwin. Another is one of my best friends. She's one of dem "wacky liberals," and even worser, she's a damn Yankee! Ya know what a "damn Yankee" is, right? It's a Yankee what come down South fer a visit and decides to stay! She and her husband both have guns and pistol totin' permitses.
Sorry, I get into "redneck speak" sometimes. I figure the anti-gun group imagines I really talk in this manner. I was just helping them out! lol
Can someone please translate what the lovely Habee is saying?
The accent is kinda strong
Add me to the list of liberals who own a gun. I've always been a supporter of regulated gun ownership. Do you know when I decided to get one of my own? After watching the horrific governmental response to Hurricane Katrina.
Many Northerners don't understand the "gun culture" of the South. Many of us spend a lot of time outdoors, in the woods, fields, and swamps. We have four venomous snake species in Georgia, and believe me - if you run into one you'll want a gun. It's a lot easier to kill a big angry snake with a gun than it is a stick.
We also have a lot of hunters here. Of course, deer can be killed with a bow, but throwing rocks at quail and doves would prove futile. Heck, it's hard enough for some people to hit a dove with a shotgun!
Many of us, myself included, enjoy skeet shooting, along with target shooting. Ironically, although most of us own firearms, we don't seem to use them as much on each other as those in large cities do.
Dang! I thought the Secret Liberal Invisibility Cloak was just a myth!
I think that, given the extremely high percentage of conservatives who support gun ownership, augmented with the perhaps smaller but still important number of liberals who agree, gun ownership is safe.
Jack Lessenberry, a voice of reason, on the 2nd Amendment.
by Scott Bateman9 days ago
The most powerful gun lobby in the country, which fiercely opposes any gun legislation, is now saying it is willing to regulate the bump stocks used in the Vegas massacre.I'm curious if the people posting on HP forums...
by Dianna Taylor Fobbs2 years ago
This was a static from 2014. 71% is a large number I don't care if the were 250 million people on earth. Police deaths from aggressive force is too many
by Michael Collins4 years ago
Do we (Americans) have freedom of speech? If so should Joan Rivers’s apologies for what she said? Can we learn from this and other people who say what they think without considering the consequences while you have the...
by Charles James6 years ago
As some fellow hubbers will know, I am involved in writing hubs for a Socialism 101 series.There are a few issues raised by the conservatives where I do not fully understand what they are saying. Before I address these...
by crankalicious5 years ago
My unbiased description is this: liberals turn to government to solve their problems. Conservatives turn to business to solve their problems.
by Nick Lucas6 years ago
Hillary Clinton signed a United Nations (UN) firearm treaty. The treaty would change Americans' right to bear arms if ratified by the Senate in 2012. Thus far, the proposed bill has strong support from the Obama...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.