Shooting at Conn Elementary 27 dead including kids

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

It's well worth it if it just save one life..

So what you're saying is that cars that can only go 65mph are a top priority then. And motorcycles should definitely be banished forever.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

So what you're saying is not only cars that can only go 65mph is a top priority then. And motorcycles should definitely be banished forever.

No I'm saying that because we have laws regarding speeding,that there is a lot less deaths/accidents than if we had no laws on speeding.
Are you saying we should get rid of prisons,any/all laws regarding any crime because it isn't 100% perfect in deterring crime.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

Bull****, common sense seems to be something you don't grasp. Background checks don't stop law abiding citizens from getting a gun.

I haven't purchased any firearms, yet I own 2. I'd say a good chunk of firearms in this country are purchased and given to children who then take them into adulthood.

Do you want to background check 12 year olds?

[Meck77]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

Bull****, common sense seems to be something you don't grasp..

Letting PEOPLE vote to determine their own laws isn't common sense?

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

No I'm saying that because we have laws regarding speeding,that there is a lot less deaths/accidents than if we had no laws on speeding.

Yes, there's a law against speeding, but you have the freedom to ignore it (I guess until the "If it saves one Life'ers" have their way)

There's also a law against shooting people. You're gonna get this sooner or later. I just know it.

[chadta]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

No I'm saying that because we have laws regarding speeding,that there is a lot less deaths/accidents than if we had no laws on speeding.

if only we had laws against killing people

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Wow that's a lot of typing to keep going down a piss poor rabbit trail you created. So which public park have you gone to where when you go there you lease a chunk of it where from that point forward nobody else is allowed to use?

And if the mechanism is all about truly policing speech (instead of controlling allocation of very limited resources) why does the FCC do nothing to control what's posted on the internet?

Typical. I point out why you have no ****ing clue what you are talking about, and all you can retort with is bullsh*t posturing.

The FCC functions both as a spectrum steward and a censoring organization. Their censorship role is extremely limited, and NOT based on the ownership of the medium. They walk a very fine line in terms of free speech, and we've accepted as a society that information distributed in a manner that children have easy access to is acceptable to censor. Which is, of course, why information that takes special effort (i.e. a subscription) to access is not.

The FCC doesn't do jack for censoring the internet because;

1.) They have no authority to censor foreign content nor to prevent people from accessing lawful material.

2.) The "protect the children" loophole currently employed for freely distributed tv/radio broadcasts has not yet been successfully played -- though not from lack of trying by various interests.

Of course, the whole point, as I said, is that no "right" is absolute. Not even the the most important: the "right" to life;

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

Typical. I point out why you have no ****ing clue what you are talking about, and all you can retort with is bullsh*t posturing.

The FCC functions both as a spectrum steward and a censoring organization. Their censorship role is extremely limited, and NOT based on the ownership of the medium.

OK, genius. So why can't the FCC touch cable?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ulate_hbo.html

The FCC's regulatory powers extend only to over-the-air broadcasters, who transmit their programs via the publicly owned spectrum. In order to obtain the FCC's permission to use slivers of that spectrum, broadcasters agree to abide by the commission's rules, which include indecency standards. Cable, on the other hand, travels to American homes via privately built and maintained hardware. (The same goes for satellite services like the DISH Network, whose orbiting hardware is privately launched.) So, cable channels needn't strike a bargain with the FCC in order to operate.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

No I'm saying that because we have laws regarding speeding,that there is a lot less deaths/accidents than if we had no laws on speeding.
Are you saying we should get rid of prisons,any/all laws regarding any crime because it isn't 100% perfect in deterring crime.

We also have lots of gun laws. What kind you can own, where you can shoot them at, and the biggie, no shooting people.

[cutthemdown]

Already democrats in the Senate seem really cool to any assault weapons ban. Bring it on Obama. Clinton often said it was the big assault weapons ban legislation he pushed that caused his big midterm defeat giving Congress to the Repubs. Its going to happen again.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Clinton often said it was the big assault weapons ban legislation he pushed that caused his big midterm defeat giving Congress to the Repubs. Its going to happen again.

No, it was the NRA that said that they dictated the outcome of the 1994 midterms. The facts say otherwise.

The NRA isn't as powerful as they like to believe.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

We also have lots of gun laws. What kind you can own, where you can shoot them at, and the biggie, no shooting people.

I don't expect an assault weapons ban to pass, & Obama doesn't expect that it will pass either. What's likely to pass is universal background checks & maybe mag capacities.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

I don't expect an assault weapons ban to pass, & Obama doesn't expect that it will pass either. What's likely to pass is universal background checks & maybe mag capacities.

So in other words something that would not have stopped any of the recent mass shootings that spurred the whole issue of gun control in the first place. Typical big govt BS then that in the end does nothing.

But hey i heard Obama is giving 10 million for some scientists can at the CDC can study guns. So at least some people get a job out of it eh?

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

So in other words something that would not have stopped any of the recent mass shootings that spurred the whole issue of gun control in the first place. Typical big govt BS then that in the end does nothing.

But hey i heard Obama is giving 10 million for some scientists can at the CDC can study guns. So at least some people get a job out of it eh?

Obama said plain as day in his announcement that passing these laws won't stop these things from ever happening again,but if they stop one it is worth doing.

[Meck77]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

So in other words something that would not have stopped any of the recent mass shootings that spurred the whole issue of gun control in the first place. Typical big govt BS then that in the end does nothing.

But hey i heard Obama is giving 10 million for some scientists can at the CDC can study guns. So at least some people get a job out of it eh?

It is retarded. It's clear what we need to do to protect our schools. The good guys with the guns just need to react quicker and waste these lunatics faster. It's that simple. Defining who the good guys are with the guns is another story.

Went to a neighborhood community meeting on stopping violence today in Denver. Obviously the big topic was guns. The police were realistic and brutally honest. They said they can't always get to incidents fast enough and recommended people educate themselves and I didn't know this but they offer citizen police training. 14 weeks. They teach people laws, you get to ride with cops, and they even train you to shoot safely and effectively.

Bottom line. The cops in Denver are ready to train more good guys with guns and that means YOU.

You guys wasting your time yapping about gun control go ahead. When some a-hole forces his way into your home and attacks your wife or daughter go ahead and try to save them with your laptop. I'm blowing their mother ****ing head off.

[nyuk nyuk]

People need to stop being so swept up in emotion and media hysteria that they're willing to roll back the Constitution. This event doesn't nearly justify this kind of behavior.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

People need to stop being so swept up in emotion and media hysteria that they're willing to roll back the Constitution. This event doesn't nearly justify this kind of behavior.

It isn't rolling back the constitution,universal background checks won't stop you from buying a gun. As has been pointed out the 2nd amendment is not unlimited.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

It isn't rolling back the constitution,universal background checks won't stop you from buying a gun. As has been pointed out the 2nd amendment is not unlimited.

And people like James Holmes will get through, anyway, and criminals will still get their hands on guns as they STEAL THEM.

Yet again, all you're doing is harassing legal gun owners. Now you're also pandering to big business by blocking off private gun sales by forcing expensive background checks on personal sales.

Scalia's ruling stated that even trigger locks were unconstitutional. Have fun with that.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Meck77

It is retarded. It's clear what we need to do to protect our schools. The good guys with the guns just need to react quicker and waste these lunatics faster. It's that simple. Defining who the good guys are with the guns is another story.

Went to a neighborhood community meeting on stopping violence today in Denver. Obviously the big topic was guns. The police were realistic and brutally honest. They said they can't always get to incidents fast enough and recommended people educate themselves and I didn't know this but they offer citizen police training. 14 weeks. They teach people laws, you get to ride with cops, and they even train you to shoot safely and effectively.

Bottom line. The cops in Denver are ready to train more good guys with guns and that means YOU.

You guys wasting your time yapping about gun control go ahead. When some a-hole forces his way into your home and attacks your wife or daughter go ahead and try to save them with your laptop. I'm blowing their mother ****ing head off.

No one is comming to take your guns away,no one is saying you can't own a gun. So if someone breaks into my house I'll blow a hole in his chest or head or both if necessary.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

It isn't rolling back the constitution,universal background checks won't stop you from buying a gun. As has been pointed out the 2nd amendment is not unlimited.

I have a problem with a guy in Alaska having to pay money for a background check just to buy his buddies shotgun. Its just more big govt that needs to be handled at the state level. If people in NY or CA want stricter laws I am all for that. But if people in Alaska don't i don't think they should be forced by the federal govt to do so. Trying to put big city rules for big city problems into rural america where guns are a way of life is another big DC joke.

Also the clip size is a total joke. Reducing clip sizes will do absolutley nothing to make your kids safer or you safer. If it doesn't make us safer why do it?

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

I have a problem with a guy in Alaska having to pay money for a background check just to buy his buddies shotgun. Its just more big govt that needs to be handled at the state level. If people in NY or CA want stricter laws I am all for that. But if people in Alaska don't i don't think they should be forced by the federal govt to do so. Trying to put big city rules for big city problems into rural america where guns are a way of life is another big DC joke.

Also the clip size is a total joke. Reducing clip sizes will do absolutley nothing to make your kids safer or you safer. If it doesn't make us safer why do it?

1. Your guy in Alaska needs to include it in the cost of the gun.
2. Federal law reigns supreme over state laws,don't like it,too ****ing bad.
3. It isn't a big city problem it's an American problem.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

1. Your guy in Alaska needs to include it in the cost of the gun.
2. Federal law reigns supreme over state laws,don't like it,too ****ing bad.
3. It isn't a big city problem it's an American problem.

Exactly more big DC politics making things more expensive for Americans.

I know once a federal law passed it trumps all which is why we have to fight big govt at the federal level.

if you don't see a difference between rural America and the big cities you are out of touch. No way we need the same gun laws for NYC that a place like Alaska or Montana need. Thats why its better to let the states handle background checks or what clip size people can have. The feds just make whatever gun needs to be illegal everywhere illegal. That type of gun is anything fully automatic and nothing more. But saying i can't have a 30 round clip in my .22 semi auto is pretty lame. I happen to live in CA so you can only have 10 but if I moved to Montana I would expect new laws that reflect where i live. Not laws made by Obama while he plays golf with a bunch of advisors trying to figure out how to keep the focus off how crappy he has handled the economy. Wasting time on gun control when they need to be cutting spending and doing a budget is exactly what Obama wants.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Exactly more big DC politics making things more expensive for Americans.

I know once a federal law passed it trumps all which is why we have to fight big govt at the federal level.

if you don't see a difference between rural America and the big cities you are out of touch. No way we need the same gun laws for NYC that a place like Alaska or Montana need. Thats why its better to let the states handle background checks or what clip size people can have. The feds just make whatever gun needs to be illegal everywhere illegal. That type of gun is anything fully automatic and nothing more. But saying i can't have a 30 round clip in my .22 semi auto is pretty lame. I happen to live in CA so you can only have 10 but if I moved to Montana I would expect new laws that reflect where i live. Not laws made by Obama while he plays golf with a bunch of advisors trying to figure out how to keep the focus off how crappy he has handled the economy. Wasting time on gun control when they need to be cutting spending and doing a budget is exactly what Obama wants.

States rights is a dead issue, this is one country,not 50 seperate plots of land doing there own thing. I didn't realize how big of a fan you are of the EU.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

And people like James Holmes will get through, anyway, and criminals will still get their hands on guns as they STEAL THEM.

Yet again, all you're doing is harassing legal gun owners. Now you're also pandering to big business by blocking off private gun sales by forcing expensive background checks on personal sales.

Scalia's ruling stated that even trigger locks were unconstitutional. Have fun with that.

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) Aalso, 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)

What part of this,don't you understand? You do realize this is part of the SC decision in DC vs heller

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

And people like James Holmes will get through, anyway, and criminals will still get their hands on guns as they STEAL THEM.

Yet again, all you're doing is harassing legal gun owners. Now you're also pandering to big business by blocking off private gun sales by forcing expensive background checks on personal sales.

Scalia's ruling stated that even trigger locks were unconstitutional. Have fun with that.

Harassing who? I AM A GUN OWNER.