Doesn't this speak volumes?

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah all it really takes is one incident. The Ecole Polytechnique shooting in Canada is all it took for our gun laws to become what they are today. Out of all the things I disagree with left wingers on, it's a massive understatement to say I disagree with strict gun control.

In Canada, guns are banned based on cosmetic features rather than any practical reason and the people making these laws clearly dunno s**t about guns. Military looking guns are banned just because they look scary. What the f**k? They function the same as hunting rifles and are just as capable of killing.

Plus I've heard of ridiculous legislation in California involving pistol grips because they make hip shooting easier. It hardly even makes a difference whether you have a hunting style grip or a pistol grip, it's more of a preference than a big functional difference. And besides, hip shooting is inaccurate as s**t beyond point blank.

I also love how the Liberal media calls every rifle a "Machine gun". Yeah never mind that it might be semi-automatic. A lot of these Liberal misconceptions sound like they come straight out of Hollywood since legislation not only focuses more on cosmetic features than functional features, but the laws are guided by popular conceptions rather than technical knowledge.

Carolyn McCarthy didn't even know what a f*****g barrel shroud was when asked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

I hear she's going to be introducing a new gun control law tomorrow; she must have started writing it before the bodies hit the ground...

The political vitriol may, perhaps, continue and mentally unbalanced people may take Fox seriously enough to knock off a few more politicians but politicians may eventually be uncomfortable enough being targets to pass a few laws. That's their business.

She probably had it waiting on her hard drive for a long time.

That was actually my thought as well; gun control has been such a non-starter that the true believers have had to sit on their hands until some tragedy comes along for them to exploit to sucker people into acting without thinking. I'm predicting a bill with someone's name on it.

Fail for them.

I bet that the people that knew him were right wingers and they decided to call him left wing because of how crazy he was.

But the videos he made clearly show he was :
- right wing
- and a nut (some people are already diagnosing him with schizophrenia).

What do you call a crazy person with inclinations towards right-wing politics? That's right!, a right wing nut.

(For this, I'd like to apologize to whomever I have called a right wing nut before. Because THAT's a right wing nut, a crazy person, a murderer. Not the guys I called right wing nuts in the past, they are just "misguided right wing people" as that's how I'll try to call them from now on.)

He was also an anti-God dude. Not exactly atheists but more like a guy that is dissappointed at God and won't trust him so he was anti-religious as well.

Inuyasha, just imagine if it was a Muslim banner with gunsights over a US map and a list of people that Muslims "must take a stand to" and "17 more to go" . US would be making a new "patriot act" already. Which leads me to post this link:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011 ... ragedy.php

That is some wild speculation there. You are assuming that a group of people who no longer keep contact with each other all conspired to portray him as a liberal and you have no proof of this. Do you really believe that liberals don't have concerns about government growing intrusive as well?

I call Poe's law; I genuinely don't know if this is meant to be taken seriously or as a parody of extremism.

The general discussion seems to revolve about whether these massacres are the effect of the proposed stimulation of violence by extremist political commentators or are merely random outbursts by mentally defective individuals that are independent of radical commentators. What seems to be neglected is that there is a good possibility that the radical stimulation for violence may have a dynamic effect on potential actual violence by a body of mentally unbalanced people that are a constant in any large population group. These potentially explosive individuals may indeed respond to the advocation to violence and therefore those advocating open violence do indeed bear responsibility for the tragic results.

There wasn't any open advocacy for violence. That is illegal. There wasn't any avocation of violence. People keep claiming some political motive or at least some political influence, but the guy is just plain too nuts for anyone to sense out of what he believes.

You really ought to pay better attention to current political statements.

I will bet many of you think American politics nowadays is violent and nasty. I suggest that you look at the history of the 1803 elections when the Republic came within a whisker of falling apart. Political nastiness has been a part of American Politics since before the constitution of 1787.

As it says in Scripture (one of the few true statements): There is nothing new under the Sun.

ruveyn

Of course none of those guys ever saw a stealth fighter.

Like Gideon's attack on the Midianite Camp. Pure stealth. The technology of the fighter's is quite advanced but the art of invisibility is as old as zebra stripes.

ruveyn

Ahaa! That's why I thought the zebra cage was empty when I visited the zoo. I never heard that Gideon flew into the camp at supersonic speed. I guess that had been edited out of my edition.

This video provides a little bit of background info about the shooter in arizona and Alex Jones speaks about the possibility of the first and second amendment being abolished.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4T1opE_GIg&feature=autofb[/youtube]