Shooting at Conn Elementary 27 dead including kids

[DivineLegion]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

We have enough gun laws. I have no problem closing the gun show loophole but that's it. Full auto are banned. An assault rifle is just a rifle that LOOKS scary but it is just a rifle. Shoots one round at a time. Pistols are semi automatic. Shotguns as well. Hunting rifles. Do we ban them next?
Laws and bans don't prevent bad people from doing bad things.
Just be honest, the real agenda is to rid the law abiding civilians in the US of any firearms.

This is an uninformed argument I hear WAY to much. Military personnel fire their weapons in single shots, its not the number of bullets per trigger pull that is the problem, it's the number of shots a shooter can discharge in a minute. That is where these weapons become extremely lethal. The "scary" accessories you are referencing are not purely aesthetic either. The pistol grip handle reduces recoile allowing a shooter better control over the course of continuous discharge, sights greater accuracy over distance, adjustable stocks for variable environmental manipulation (ie. you can shorten the weapon for tighter confines), and the muzzle of an AR 15 is designed to regulate the heat of the weapon by controlling discharge for continuos firing. Don't even get me started on magazines, that's just obvious. Semiautomatic weapons are a problem no matter their design. When the second amendment was incorporated into the constitution, the term arms was used in reference to muskets. It would take a skilled soldier up to a minute to reload a musket. The writers of the second amendment had no way of conceiving what an "arm" would become, seeing as the idea of individualized semiautomatic weapons came into play 100 years after its ratification. In order to orchestrate a mass murder on the scale of those seen in the United States over the previous decade in the late 1700s, one would have to enlist the services of a small army.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by DivineLegion

This is an uninformed argument I hear WAY to much. Military personnel fire their weapons in single shots, its not the number of bullets per trigger pull that is the problem, it's the number of shots a shooter can discharge in a minute. That is where these weapons become extremely lethal. The "scary" accessories you are referencing are not purely aesthetic either. The pistol grip handle reduces recoile allowing a shooter better control over the course of continuous discharge, sights greater accuracy over distance, adjustable stocks for variable environmental manipulation (ie. you can shorten the weapon for tighter confines), and the muzzle of an AR 15 is designed to regulate the heat of the weapon by controlling discharge for continuos firing. Don't even get me started on magazines, that's just obvious. Semiautomatic weapons are a problem no matter their design. When the second amendment was incorporated into the constitution, the term arms was used in reference to muskets. It would take a skilled soldier up to a minute to reload a musket. The writers of the second amendment had no way of conceiving what an "arm" would become, seeing as the idea of individualized semiautomatic weapons came into play 100 years after its ratification. In order to orchestrate a mass murder on the scale of those seen in the United States over the previous decade in the late 1700s, one would have to enlist the services of a small army.

What bull****. We on the mane all know that all semi-automatic weapons are of equal power. The military just uses assault rifles because they make them more intimidating.

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by DivineLegion

This is an uninformed argument I hear WAY to much. Military personnel fire their weapons in single shots, its not the number of bullets per trigger pull that is the problem, it's the number of shots a shooter can discharge in a minute. That is where these weapons become extremely lethal. The "scary" accessories you are referencing are not purely aesthetic either. The pistol grip handle reduces recoile allowing a shooter better control over the course of continuous discharge, sights greater accuracy over distance, adjustable stocks for variable environmental manipulation (ie. you can shorten the weapon for tighter confines), and the muzzle of an AR 15 is designed to regulate the heat of the weapon by controlling discharge for continuos firing. Don't even get me started on magazines, that's just obvious. Semiautomatic weapons are a problem no matter their design. When the second amendment was incorporated into the constitution, the term arms was used in reference to muskets. It would take a skilled soldier up to a minute to reload a musket. The writers of the second amendment had no way of conceiving what an "arm" would become, seeing as the idea of individualized semiautomatic weapons came into play 100 years after its ratification. In order to orchestrate a mass murder on the scale of those seen in the United States over the previous decade in the late 1700s, one would have to enlist the services of a small army.

Pistols, hunting rifles and shotguns are all semi automatic. So is it the scary pistol grip and collapsible stock you're worried about?
Tell me who is the 2nd amendment protecting us from?

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

What bull****. We on the mane all know that all semi-automatic weapons are of equal power. The military just uses assault rifles because they make them more intimidating.

The military uses semi automatic weapons because they are better equipped for self defense.

[DivineLegion]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

Pistols, hunting rifles and shotguns are all semi automatic. So is it the scary pistol grip and collapsible stock you're worried about?
Tell me who is the 2nd amendment protecting us from?

All semiautomatic weapons pose a greater threat, however shotguns and pistols are limited because of recoil. Some pistols should only be in the hands of law enforcement, just ask a police officer next time you get a chance. Nothing about weapons is scary to me personally, because I understand them. I don't condone the right of Joe Shmoe with no idea what he's doing playing with them, or worse someone who does and wants to massacre innocent children. You are inclined to believe what you want, but if its the Government you are afraid of you should just leave. If the US decided to come down on its citizens, anyone willing to resist would be annihilated, so you can pretend your suped up .22 is going to save your life, but its not.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by DivineLegion

All semiautomatic weapons pose a greater threat, however shotguns and pistols are limited because of recoil. Some pistols should only be in the hands of law enforcement, just ask a police officer next time you get a chance.

This right here shows someone who has zero understanding of the second amendment's intentions.

You are inclined to believe what you want, but if its the Government you are afraid of you should just leave. If the US decided to come down on its citizens, anyone willing to resist would be annihilated, so you can pretend your suped up .22 is going to save your life, but its not.

Yeah, that's why Afghanistan is going so swimmingly, AMIRITE? Our government imposes its will with ease.

BTW, I'm sure it would help your average Cop quite a bit from time to time if he could set aside the 4th amendment as well. Imagine how good they could 'protect' us if they could just conduct random searches and seizures through violent neighborhoods. I mean after all, our government would never abuse their power or anything. They're just here to protect us, so that Amendment should probably get the axe too, while we're at it.

[Obushma]

Originally Posted by DivineLegion

You are inclined to believe what you want, but if its the Government you are afraid of you should just leave. If the US decided to come down on its citizens, anyone willing to resist would be annihilated, so you can pretend your suped up .22 is going to save your life, but its not.

Tell that to the Vietnamese who were running supply lines on schwins.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Obushma

Tell that to the Vietnamese who were running supply lines on schwins.

It's crazy how some people so woefully overestimate the capability of the federal government.

"You can't resist or they'll NUKE ya!"

[DivineLegion]

Yes, gorilla warfare in lands storied with military conflict compared to the lazy apethtic culture of the United States. Great historical analysis there guys, with the way our culture operates, I would invision a modern civil war to facililitate more like a German occupied France.

Afghanistan hasn't had a successful occupation since the Persian Empire, Alexander couldn't control the tribes, the Mongols couldn't control the tribes, the Ottomans couldn't control the tribes, tge Soviets couldn't control the tribes, and neither can the United States. Vietnam is the exact same. Both countries occupy untamable terrain, highly capable populaces, and a knack for brutal warfare.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by DivineLegion

Afghanistan hasn't had a successful occupation since the Persian Empire, Alexander couldn't control the tribes, the Mongols couldn't control the tribes, the Ottomans couldn't control the tribes, tge Soviets couldn't control the tribes, and neither can the United States. Vietnam is the exact same. Both countries occupy untamable terrain, highly capable populaces, and a knack for brutal warfare.

Good historical perspective. Now how about that American Revolution against the most powerful nation on the planet? Possibly the most powerful empire the world had ever seen. How did that go?

The 2nd was written in the hopes that that spirit of resistance would never be undermined. The fact that you'd like it effectively repealed because we're too apathetic to use it is one of the more ironic things I've ever read.

And "highly capable populaces"

We're held at bay by a militant minority with third grade educations who believe they're defending their homeland. We won't win there (like in Vietnam) because it means more to them than it does to us. Which is no different than what would happen if your government started rolling over neighborhoods with tanks.

Sure you can kill a lot of people that way. But you can't govern them.

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by DivineLegion

I don't condone the right of Joe Shmoe

Well shyt, I guess that's the end of the argument. DivineLegion doesn't condone it, we must give it up. Who the hell do you think you are Obama?

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

Well shyt, I guess that's the end of the argument. DivineLegion doesn't condone it, we must give it up. Who the hell do you think you are Obama?

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.

-Thomas Jefferson

[peacepipe]

This whole thing is over what amts to a molehill, none of the executive orders/actions will be found unconstitutional,nor will assault weapons ban,mag capacity limits,universal background checks be found unconstitutional either. It's just a matter of what can get through Congress.

[ant1999e]

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/3020...town-shooting/

When the president surrounds himself with children while giving his announcement that reasonable gun control measures are necessary, bear in mind that those ‘assault rifles‘ the government is sure to be going after were not even used in the Newton, Connecticut elementary shooting. As NBC admits in the video above, four handguns were used to carry out that despicable atrocity. This directly contradicts other reports.

Pete Williams, who is NBC’s chief Justice correspondent, reported the following in the video posted above:

This continues to be a very complex investigation and there is a lot of contradictory information out there, but we have some new information this morning (one month ago) from a couple of federal officials and state officials.

They say now that there were actually four handguns inside the school, not just two as we were initially told. Four handguns and apparently only handguns that were taken into the school.

We knew that Adam Lanza, the man said to be the gunman here, also had an ‘assault-style’ AR-15 -style rifle that he had had taken to the school, it was in the car he drove there, his mother’s car, but we have been told by several officials that he had left that in the car.

The correspondent makes it clear over and over again that he confirmed this information with federal and state officials. Now, a lot of media reports contradict this one, but somebody’s lying. The report that an ‘AR-15-style’ assault rifle was in the trunk of murderer Adam Lanza’s car is up for dispute as well. If one examines footage from police breaking into Lanza’s car, one sees police clearing a round from a “long gun of some type” that does not appear to be ‘AR-15 style’ or ‘assault-style.’

Whether or not the mainstream media are intentionally spreading disinformation about the Sandy Hook elementary tragedy, there is one thing for certain: not only are violent crime rates at a modern low and going down, but only 323 homicides were committed by rifles in 2011. That includes hunting rifles, assault rifles, military style rifles, semi-automatic rifles and whatever label one comes up with, regardless of magazine or clip capacity.

In a nation of 311 million people, the odds of being killed by a rifle is about one homicide per million people, which is far less than the odds of being murdered by a blunt object. But we don’t hear the media arguing about regulating hammers and clubs. Again, when 99.7% of registered gun owners are law-abiding, gun control is not about guns, it’s about control.

[Meck77]

Originally Posted by DivineLegion

When the second amendment was incorporated into the constitution, the term arms was used in reference to muskets. It would take a skilled soldier up to a minute to reload a musket. The writers of the second amendment had no way of conceiving what an "arm" would become, seeing as the idea of individualized semiautomatic weapons came into play 100 years after its ratification. In order to orchestrate a mass murder on the scale of those seen in the United States over the previous decade in the late 1700s, one would have to enlist the services of a small army.

It's all relative. Back then the military had muskets and so did the average joe rancher. The military has assault weapons so does joe rancher. If we want to scale back capabilities of weapons then why not ask the government to adhere to same laws they intent to put on the public?

Also as far as your reference to police. They are some of the worst criminals on the streets. Had a cop as tenant once. His wife turned out to be a hooker and they were stealing goods from the GOOD WILL. The ****ing goodwill! When I evicted the COP they left a pile of stolen goods. I tried to report it his cop boss who turned a blind eye.

[DivineLegion]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Good historical perspective. Now how about that American Revolution against the most powerful nation on the planet? Possibly the most powerful empire the world had ever seen. How did that go?

The 2nd was written in the hopes that that spirit of resistance would never be undermined. The fact that you'd like it effectively repealed because we're too apathetic to use it is one of the more ironic things I've ever read.

And "highly capable populaces"

We're held at bay by a militant minority with third grade educations who believe they're defending their homeland. We won't win there (like in Vietnam) because it means more to them than it does to us. Which is no different than what would happen if your government started rolling over neighborhoods with tanks.

Sure you can kill a lot of people that way. But you can't govern them.

Capable is relative to their ability to wage warfare (gorilla warefare to be specific), not their ability to read and write. Ironically the Americans turned the tides of the revolution when they altered their strategic outline to fit a more Gorilla approach, something I don't see modern Americans being capable of.

It's not that I don't want Americans to uphold their right, I never said that, what I was arguing is the responsibility of Americans rights. There is no practical argument for assult weapons or high capacity magazines. Hand guns, rifles, and shotguns are great, Military style assult weapons? Come on. Do you understand the ballistic conciquences of a .323 ordinance? There is 0 practicality for such a tool in any capacity in the United States. Those rounds are designed for anti-personnel purposes only.

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

This whole thing is over what amts to a molehill, none of the executive orders/actions will be found unconstitutional,nor will assault weapons ban,mag capacity limits,universal background checks be found unconstitutional either. It's just a matter of what can get through Congress.

Yeah, limiting the rights given to us by the US Constitution is just a mole hill.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by DivineLegion

Capable is relative to their ability to wage warfare (gorilla warefare to be specific), not their ability to read and write.

Funny that you don't think either arms or education are at all helpful to an insurgency. What exactly do these Afghani fighters have going for them? Do their balls hang super low?

There is no practical argument for assult weapons or high capacity magazines. Hand guns, rifles, and shotguns are great, Military style assult weapons? Come on. Do you understand the ballistic conciquences of a .323 ordinance? There is 0 practicality for such a tool in any capacity in the United States.

I assume you're talking .223, but tell me, if there's no practicality, then why this?

http://www.14news.com/story/20608248...aw-enforcement

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Meck77

It's all relative. Back then the military had muskets and so did the average joe rancher. The military has assault weapons so does joe rancher. If we want to scale back capabilities of weapons then why not ask the government to adhere to same laws they intent to put on the public?

Any time you hear "But only Cops need that!" you know you have someone who doesn't believe in 2nd Amendment rights. It's that simple.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

Yeah, limiting the rights given to us by the US Constitution is just a mole hill.

Our 1st amendment rights are regulated,FCC controls what can or cannot be said on TV,you can't yell fire in a movie theatre,so on & so on. With rights do come responsibilities. Supreme Court,more specificly your boy scalia ,ruled that the 2nd is not unlimited & can be regulated.

[peacepipe]

In the DC vs Heller case.

3. The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned. (55)

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

Our 1st amendment rights are regulated,FCC controls what can or cannot be said on TV

Misconception. FCC controls what can or cannot be said over publicly licensed airspace. If you fully own the means of communication, it has no jurisdiction over your freedom to say what you want.

you can't yell fire in a movie theatre,so on & so on.

You can't? Well then how can you shoot people in a movie theater? I was under the mistaken impression there were laws against both.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Misconception. FCC controls what can or cannot be said over publicly licensed airspace. If you fully own the means of communication, it has no jurisdiction over your freedom to say what you want.



You can't? Well then how can you shoot people in a movie theater? I was under the mistaken impression there were laws against both.

Over airwaves,or in person its free speech that's being regulated.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

Over airwaves,or in person its free speech that's being regulated.

No it isn't. You don't have a Constitutional right to RF spectrum. It wouldn't be possible to allow truly 'free' speech there.

A better analogy would be the internet. Does the FCC control what you say here?

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

No it isn't. You don't have a Constitutional right to RF spectrum. It wouldn't be possible to allow truly 'free' speech there.

A better analogy would be the internet. Does the FCC control what you say here?

Not yet but if peacepipe and his buddies have anything to do with it...