14 dead and 50 injured in mass shooting in Colorado.

Post Reply New Topic

1) Do your homework. The 2nd amendment is made up of 4 components and the militia is just one and the US citizen IS the militia. That is still in the US Code. Furthermore, the founding fathers writings indicated that the 2nd amendment was intended to include army infantry weapons at a minimum.

2) Research gun laws. Your statement about "sane" levels of restrictions on assault weapons and what constitutes an assault weapon is part of a debate that has been raging since before you were born. Such a law was tried but it was unpopular and didn't work and made the gun lobby tired of gun control "compromises" since they just amount to a slow, incremental ban.

3) Research gun laws some more. There are already laws about people who have been committed to a hospital owning guns and laws to ensure that dealers comply with the background check. It's not always evident that someone is totally insane simply from a light, casual conversation with them.

4) A musket of that time had about a 100 yard accurate range. Hunting rifles were accurate out to about 400, which is similar to the effective range of an AK-47 when using aimed fire. Not only that, but the founding fathers embraced weapon innovations during their lifetime. They were not men that lost their spine at the thought or even the sight of innocent bloodshed. They saw many atrocities by the British and during their time in the French-Indian war and fully understood the need for the individual to be able to take their own initiative to stand up and defend themselves.

Gun control politics is extremely complicated. Take your time to learn the dynamics of it before you shoot your mouth off.

Typical for a republican to resort to propaganda.

Also, the rate of fire of an average hunting rifle is low, compared to an AK-47. What I mean by assault weapons is military grade weapons. Also, I think buying guns off the Internet is stupid and should be banned too. A liscence should exist Nationwide.
I find also that guns only purpose is to kill. Yes, you can kill with an knife or car, but you can also use it for other things. Meanwhile, guns can only be used destructively. Think of it less like a car, and more like a bomb/grenade/Moltov Cocktail: it only destroys.

What do you think of that, Mr. NRA?

Anarbaculardrop wrote:

Nothing propaganda in it unless you consider facts to be propaganda.


It’s accuracy that counts.


Not much of a definition.


They can purchase and pay for them online but the gun MUST be shipped to an FFL holder (a dealer) and the buyer has to go through the same process as if he bought the gun from a local dealer. They cannot just be delivered to anyone’s doorstep.


I was shooting two of them just a few hours ago. Nothing died.

It should go without saying that those of us who are into guns know a lot more than you about all aspects of them.

Last edited by Raptor on 04 Aug 2012, 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Your idealogy seems too be off. Maybe you gun-loving, idiotic, republican fools don't understand a few things:

Even though it says sepificaly about a well-regulated militia, and that it was made during a time were the best gun you could get was a musket or primitive rifle, and the time was when people were vunerable to many threats we have dealt with in the past, you continue to believe that the constitution is an archive of laws from long ago that must not change under any circumstances( an idiots thoughts.) Grover Norquist is a bastard, Rush Limbaugh & Glen Beck are perverted, disgusting liars, and so is all of Fox News.

What do you say, people who are obviously members of the National Rifle Assotiation?

Also, America is falling behind. It will not be the top nation for long.

Last edited by Anarbaculardrop on 04 Aug 2012, 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'd say you sound like a mouth frothing ret*d.

I did not get into doctrines; everything I stated is a proven fact.

When the constitution was ratified, muskets were the military grade weapon of their day and they did not regulate them. In 1917, congress even started selling old military weapons. I even bought one from them a few years ago. The "sporting purposes" doctrine was not fabricated until 1929 by activist judges and promoted later by politicians with their own private agendas.

Stereotypical liberal propaganda is to bash the AK-47 as if it is some magic death wand that possesses people to do it's bidding. Such people obviously know nothing about guns because if they did, they would know that every gun has it's strengths and drawbacks in equal proportion. No matter what purpose you are using a gun for, each model has it's advantages and disadvantages. Even light weight, short barrels, large magazines, and large bullets can all be drawbacks depending on what you are doing. Politicians and reporters don't realize that the AK is less accurate, has a shorter effective range, kicks harder, has heavier ammo and magazines, bulkier magazines, and takes longer to change magazines than many of the more politically correct rifles. Additionally the commonly available target and military surplus ammo was only designed by the red army to create large numbers of wounded to burden the German supply lines. When the AK-47 was created, they simply chambered it for a bullet they already had in production. It's proven effective on the battlefield but it's not the best even in it's original role. It's versatile but has major limitations. But the Grim Reaper's scythe, it's definitely not. No gun fits all the media's claims about the AK-47.

With VERY few exceptions, you cannot buy a gun off the internet and have it shipped to your door. You have to get a local dealer in touch with the internet dealer and have them exchange license information and then they ship it to the local dealer for you to do a background check there. Getting a gun shipped directly to you off the internet already requires a license that must be applicable to that category of firearm. The only reason I have ever had guns shipped directly to my doorstep is because I have one of those types of licenses.

You can kill people with a gun, but there is still a need for hunting- not just for animal population control and recreation, but also subsistence. In some lower income rural areas, hunting is used for subsistence and can also lower some people's grocery bills. Local food banks in such areas often depend on on hunters who supply a large portion of the meat that gets donated.

Most guns in the US have never been used to kill anything. Most are used for recreation. I do not deny that there are people with a handgun in the nightstand or a loaded shotgun in the closet, but they are not out on a mission to kill anyone- they only want to be left in peace.

Here; I can not enlighten your fool minds with anything, but I would like you to take a bit of philosophy I heard today:It is at the beginning of a story called "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Hemingway. I did not have this phrase memorized, and I have only began hearing the story, but this thing at the beginning is something that I think makes the most sense:No man is an island, and everyone is interconnected.With all your guns and laws and idiot men, you forgot one important thing: your mind. Fox has drained it from you like the vampire it is; mine was enlightened. The most reliable news source, in fact, to your dismay, is Potus and Fareed Zakaria. I am a liberal. You are just inflexible idiots following a single foolish ideology. What you need to get eventhe mildest of guns is a sanity test. I am quite sure you would not pass.

When one of those is actually created and it is reliable, it will probably be applied.

I don't follow any political pundits; fox news, Limbaugh, Hannity, any of them.

As for psychological testing, I won't get into that because I don't feel like teaching you your entire US government class you will take your senior year.

I thought you were taking the side of those hounds that call themselves "reasonable republicans," something i do not believe. Still, I think adding a license, making weapons of any sort illegal to sell on the internet, checking the medical and criminal records of the person they are selling it to, and asking their intentions, and putting homing devices in them with a sanity test wouldn't harm anything.

YOU are advocating sanity tests after your fiery little breakdowns above?

I don't trust myself with weapons, you fanatic, gun-loving republican.

A purchase license would not do anything a background check doesn't already do, internet transfers are no different than any other dealer to dealer or distributor to dealer transaction, and criminal and mental health records have been checked for 44 years now!

As for homing devices, get back to me on that after you have taken some sort of physical science class. The ATF did a little experiment with homing devices during fast and furious and it failed miserably.

And the problem with psychiatric testing (including job screening) is that after you have taken them enough times, you learn how to make them turn out how you want!

http://archives.gunsandammo.com/content/mental-illness-and-gun-ownership?page=1



And the article goes on to state, that it is not necessarily the individuals who are involuntarily committed that may among subgroups of individuals with mental illness that are at a greater risk to own a firearm, per potential danger to others. However obviously they may be more of danger to themselves.

Considering the NCIS only has access to less than 4 percent of the records, it's a pretty good bet that there are many individuals that have answered no that have been involuntarily committed, that have been successful in purchasing a firearm, background check.

Almost impossible that all mental health records could be checked without incredible administrative expense to make that happen, as over 20% of individuals in the US are diagnosed with a mental illness at any time, and there is not even an acceptable identified way to gain access to those records.

As the article states, it is left to family to control the situation, where family is most often the victim of the violence, when it occurs. Not many good answers in the mental health arena. Not even for current ineffective mental health competency checks that have been provided for decades; the reliance of verification has and continues to be subject mostly to the honesty of the applicant.

The bulk of the article talks about those committed being no more than slightly (if at all) more likely to commit violence, that court ordered commitment is statistically insignificant in overall violent crime statistics, the most dangerous people are hardest to spot, and that there is a ton of legal and constitutional issues in determining who is mentally ill enough to ban from owning guns and how to do so without any civil rights violations.