Guns out of control

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Obamacare will pay the bill....

Thanks to President Obama, the Democrats, and the Supreme Court a year or two from now you would be right.

But why should he and his insurance company have to pay just because some gun nut shoots you on accident or on purpose.

No that would be his and his insurance company which makes people carrying liability insurance on every gun they own a very practical thing

Originally Posted by jammer1

guns aren't the problem, it's the moron's that own the guns. i have atleast 15 guns becuase i hunt. everytime i hear of a shooting i thing yea..... one step closer to a lib shutin gun laws down. when in reality a crook will always find a way to get a gun. I HOPE THEY FRY THAT BASTARD FOR WHAT HE DID!

No people using guns to massacre innocent people is the problem and topic of this thread.

What's your solution for that?

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by stumbler

No people using guns to massacre innocent people is the problem and topic of this thread.

What's your solution for that?

An American flag, and chants of "USA! USA!"

[RandyKnight]

Originally Posted by stumbler

No only an idiot would believe any such thing.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Sometimes with guns. And people with assault rifles and 100 round drums can kill a lot more people in one place at one time than just someone who has regular guns with limited round capacity.

And what you appear to be saying is you have an unlimited right to own and possess guns and high capacity clips and magazines, but no one else has a right to go to a movie and not get shot.

Damn and all this time I thought bullets killed...unless someone slugged you with a gun...

[Distant Lover]

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people," is as stupid a cliche as, "The United States is a republic, not a democracy."

[Druidoak]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Thanks to President Obama, the Democrats, and the Supreme Court a year or two from now you would be right.

But why should he and his insurance company have to pay just because some gun nut shoots you on accident or on purpose.

No that would be his and his insurance company which makes people carrying liability insurance on every gun they own a very practical thing



No people using guns to massacre innocent people is the problem and topic of this thread.

What's your solution for that?

Here is my solution!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobile...n_1682519.html

[jammer1]

i just said it's morons that own the guns. Do you own guns? the laws are strict! if you buy a gun the right way! any clown can get a gun off the street!

[shyguyy2]

It's the person behind the gun that causes the problem. When I was growing up my dad(RIP and Semper Fi) had a preban government issue M16A1 with a 100 round loaded magazine next to his bed I never touched it even when I felt like killing someone. I insted turned my rage on a heavy bag or ran.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by jammer1

i just said it's morons that own the guns. Do you own guns? the laws are strict! if you buy a gun the right way! any clown can get a gun off the street!

Yes. I have all my life. And I'm willing to bet I can out shoot you with your guns let alone mine.

But that being said its clear to me we have more gun rights in this country than we've got gun sense or responsibility. That's why as I think you point out we've got loaded guns falling out of kids pockets at school.

That, however, still pales in comparison to everyone having a right to own guns but people not having a right to go to a theater and not get shot and/or killed.

Now, that's a fucking problem for all gun owners. So us gun owners need to step up and come up with some practical solutions to stop or at lest cut down on this kind of carnage.

Otherwise they will eventually be coming for our guns and have damn good reasons for doing so.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by shyguyy2

It's the person behind the gun that causes the problem. When I was growing up my dad(RIP and Semper Fi) had a preban government issue M16A1 with a 100 round loaded magazine next to his bed I never touched it even when I felt like killing someone. I insted turned my rage on a heavy bag or ran.

Good for you. Then you ain't the problem are you? The problem those who do choose to commit mass murder with assualt rifles and 100 round magazine.

But thanks for admitting that neither you or your dad ever needed it.

[shyguyy2]

I have over 400 guns all legal but I'm responsible and they are stored with the ammo in a 16'X20' room surounded by 2 feet of re-enforced concrete and locked behind a 3,000lb blast door the kind used in missile bunkers. Yes the room doubles as my storm shelter and bomb shelter.

[shyguyy2]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Good for you. Then you ain't the problem are you? The problem those who do choose to commit mass murder with assualt rifles and 100 round magazine.

But thanks for admitting that neither you or your dad ever needed it.

We never used it to against a human but those raccoons sure hated it.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by shyguyy2

I have over 400 guns all legal but I'm responsible and they are stored with the ammo in a 16'X20' room surounded by 2 feet of re-enforced concrete and locked behind a 3,000lb blast door the kind used in missile bunkers. Yes the room doubles as my storm shelter and bomb shelter.

Pretty useless then aren't they? As far as I know a man needs a high powered rifle, a shot gun, and a .22 to do everything you want. Pistols are an extra indulgence. But I do own a couple of them. A .22 Remington Jet (bet you never heard of it) for fun and a .38 in case I need to kill you.

PS You realize shooting racoons with a high powered assault weapon with a 100 shot magazine makes you look a little sick and crazy don't you?

[stumbler]

NRA Members Agree: More Gun Regulation Makes Sense

It seems obvious to many that advocating for regulating the sale, ownership, and use of guns is a political loser. Indeed, there is a wealth of polling data suggesting Americans oppose “gun control” and favor “gun rights.” However, new research obtained by ThinkProgress indicates that this opposition exists only in the abstract. According to a poll conducted in May by Republican pollster Frank Luntz for the group Mayors against Illegal Guns, gun-owning Americans, including National Rifle Association (NRA) members, overwhelmingly support a raft of common-sense measures typically described as “gun control:”

1. Requiring criminal background checks on gun owners and gun shop employees. 87 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 74 percent of NRA gun owners support the former, and 80 percent and 79 percent, respectively, endorse the latter.
2. Prohibiting terrorist watch list members from acquiring guns. Support ranges from 80 percent among non-NRA gun-owners to 71 percent among NRA members.
3. Mandating that gun-owners tell the police when their gun is stolen. 71 percent non-NRA gun-owners support this measure, as do 64 percent of NRA members.
4. Concealed carry permits should only be restricted to individuals who have completed a safety training course and are 21 and older. 84 percent of non-NRA and 74 percent of NRA member gun-owners support the safety training restriction, and the numbers are 74 percent and 63 percent for the age restriction.
5. Concealed carry permits shouldn’t be given to perpetrators of violent misdemeanors or individuals arrested for domestic violence. The NRA/non-NRA gun-owner split on these issues is 81 percent and 75 percent in favor of the violent misdemeanors provision and 78 percent/68 percent in favor of the domestic violence restriction.

The poll, which sampled 945 gun owners around the country and had a margin of error of +/- 3, also found broad support gun-owners for the principle that “support for 2nd Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping illegal guns out of the hands of criminals.” In fact, more NRA members (87 percent) supported the statement than non-NRA members (83 percent). One wonders if the views of its supporters will be heard at NRA headquarters, as the organization opposes laws that attempt to implement several of the positions that Luntz’ poll established gun-owners support.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/20...s-makes-sense/

[Druidoak]

Originally Posted by stumbler

NRA Members Agree: More Gun Regulation Makes Sense




http://thinkprogress.org/election/20...s-makes-sense/

I agree with those regulations, hell we already have them in place were in Ohio, but not one of those would of stopped Holmes. Nor would they stop anyone that is planning on doing what Holmes did.

There is an old saying "Locks only keep honest people honest"

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Druidoak

I agree with those regulations, hell we already have them in place were in Ohio, but not one of those would of stopped Holmes. Nor would they stop anyone that is planning on doing what Holmes did.

There is an old saying "Locks only keep honest people honest"

I think we both agree there's no way to stop the Holmes. But limitations on assault rifles and high capacity clips would have helped cut down on the body count.

Check this out. Can you own a fully automatic machine gun in this nation and shoot it all you want if you can afford the ammo?

You bet you can. In fact I bet there's tens of thousands of people who own machine guns in the us right now in the US.

Do we have any problem with those machine guns?

No. Because they won't just let any fool buy one and you have to go though a thorough registration and licensing process to legally own them.

I'm thinking its time for the same thing with assault rifles and high capacity clips.

[dogman51]

what if one person was an offduty policeman in that movie theatre or what if there was a
concealed carry licensee there to defend themselves and others, would the casualties be less

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by dogman51

what if one person was an offduty policeman in that movie theatre or what if there was a
concealed carry licensee there to defend themselves and others, would the casualties be less

That's what the plaintiffs will be asking in their law suit. No to mention an alarm on the emergency exit. That's who's going to pay for all this carnage. Not the killer. The theater owners. Because that's all the victims can sue.

But aside from one suspected bullshitter claiming a .50 will shoot through body armor and he's the one who could have done it an off duty police man with a conventional side arm would have been helpless and any regular citizen would have probably just added to the body count.

[richief]

Why should the theatre be held at fault? Sue the manufacturers and gun shops for created and selling these things.

The person to blame and who is at fault is in custody, sue him.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by richief

Why should the theatre be held at fault? Sue the manufacturers and gun shops for created and selling these things.

The person to blame and who is at fault is in custody, sue him.

Nope that's not the way it works over here and the NRA made sure of that.

[richief]

How is the theatre at fault?

[shyguyy2]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Pretty useless then aren't they? As far as I know a man needs a high powered rifle, a shot gun, and a .22 to do everything you want. Pistols are an extra indulgence. But I do own a couple of them. A .22 Remington Jet (bet you never heard of it) for fun and a .38 in case I need to kill you.

PS You realize shooting racoons with a high powered assault weapon with a 100 shot magazine makes you look a little sick and crazy don't you?

Who said I was the one shooting them and my dad only needed one shot.
Yes I know what a Remington Jet is.(guns are a huge hobby for me) Most of my guns are ones I've got from dead relatives. My main weapons are my Remington700 cutsom built to the specs of my M40A4 I used in the Marines, That old M16, and my Colt Delta Elite 10mm. Those are stored in my bed room and trigger locked except for the 10mm that is my carry weapon. Your odds of killing me are not good not that you'd have a reason.

[shyguyy2]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Check this out. Can you own a fully automatic machine gun in this nation and shoot it all you want if you can afford the ammo?

You bet you can. In fact I bet there's tens of thousands of people who own machine guns in the us right now in the US.

Do we have any problem with those machine guns?

No. Because they won't just let any fool buy one and you have to go though a thorough registration and licensing process to legally own them.

I'm thinking its time for the same thing with assault rifles and high capacity clips.

I own a machine gun it is a preban M60 my dad bought in 1981 it sits in the middle of my gun room as a safe queen. I have about 12,000 belted rounds for it. I probably have around 100,000 rounds in all. Yes it's all legal and I get a vist from the government about once a year to do a stock check. My finger prints and photo are on file along with a list of weapons. You can also buy granade launchers mine are a M79 and a M203. I love the USA! Also I'd like to edite my abouve post my rifle was M40A3 I hit the wrong key.

[m21]

Originally Posted by shyguyy2

I have over 400 guns all legal but I'm responsible and they are stored with the ammo in a 16'X20' room surounded by 2 feet of re-enforced concrete and locked behind a 3,000lb blast door the kind used in missile bunkers. Yes the room doubles as my storm shelter and bomb shelter.

No wind up here just a few simple genuine questions.
Why do you, and so many others, NEED to have such a stockpile of weapons, 400 guns ? 100,000 rounds of ammo?
What is it that you are all so afraid of that you feel the NEED to have so many weapons ?
Are you, and others not being very paranoid for no reason? because I seriously fail to see any valid reason to have to have such a vast arsenal of weapons.
2 foot re-enforced concrete bunkers/come bomb shelters ? WTF ?
Why the hell would anybody NEED a rocket launcher?
I mean, come on folks, is that the life of a everyday normal guy ?
Why is it only Americans that go to such extremes ?
What is it that you are all so afraid of ?

I own "some" guns myself so not one of the anti-gun lobby and if some people wish to have more than I own then I have no problem with that.

I just fail to get my head around such extremes and cannot see a single NEED, the keyword is NEED if you get what I'm questioning here.

The only thing that I can think of is total paranoia and it seems America is the leader here.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by m21

No wind up here just a few simple genuine questions.
Why do you, and so many others, NEED to have such a stockpile of weapons, 400 guns ? 100,000 rounds of ammo?
What is it that you are all so afraid of that you feel the NEED to have so many weapons ?
Are you, and others not being very paranoid for no reason? because I seriously fail to see any valid reason to have to have such a vast arsenal of weapons.
2 foot re-enforced concrete bunkers/come bomb shelters ? WTF ?
Why the hell would anybody NEED a rocket launcher?
I mean, come on folks, is that the life of a everyday normal guy ?
Why is it only Americans that go to such extremes ?
What is it that you are all so afraid of ?

I own "some" guns myself so not one of the anti-gun lobby and if some people wish to have more than I own then I have no problem with that.

I just fail to get my head around such extremes and cannot see a single NEED, the keyword is NEED if you get what I'm questioning here.

The only thing that I can think of is total paranoia and it seems America is the leader here.

[ridgerunner]

as the owner of multiple firearms ....i have them because some belonged to family and friends, some were gifts, and i own a gun shop

i use safes to protect people from the firearms and ammo that i have

i have no need or desire for any style of grenade or artillery piece other than the firefly sitting in the yard

i have a bomb shelter because my area is a prime target for attacks and we also use it during hurricanes

[tim929]

Originally Posted by stumbler

OK I can follow your line of thought here but its not like we're not doing anything about the auto accidents is it.

Lets see we require divers to have a drivers license and insurance don't we? In some states they actually require people to take driving courses before they can get a license. And we make people register their automobiles every year don't we? Don't we also have programs like report every drunk driver immediately and even check points to stop drivers and make sure people aren't driving drunk?

So considering the number of deaths and injuries from guns why can't we do about the same things we are doing with automobiles to cut down on the number of deaths and injuries from auto accidents?

You know things like taking a test and having a license. Registering guns like we do cars. Making gun owners have liability insurance.

PS Can you drive a Formula 1 race car on the street? Can you buy a fully armed tank to drive around in?

Sorry it took me a while to get back to you on this one but I spent the day on the range and was cleaning my rifle (no joke. I had a really great day and got invited to a shooting match this weekend.) On the subject of registering firearms the way we do cars...The reason we register cas has nothing to do with safety. It has everything to do with raising money. Your registration fees go toward highway and infrastructure development. Its a use tax. As for the driving test, I am and have always been a HUGE proponent that shooting should be taught in highschool the way it was in many states through the 1960's. It wasnt until hand wringing liberals decided that guns were dangerous that many schools stopped teaching firearms safety and many schools had NRA sponsored youth shooting clubs that would compete up to the national level. Many of the countrys best Olympic (TM) marksmen came from the ranks of our nations highschool students. Many highschools had ROTC organizations as well.

Some schools allowed the shooting to be done in the hallways of certain buildings in the school after hours and bullet traps were used at the end of the hallways. Using this method students could practice indoors when the weather (rain, snow, -40 temperatures) made shooting outside impractical. And girls were encouraged to try out for many school shooting teams. I know people who lettered in shooting sports back in the 1950s.

As for the checkpoints...there have been many legal chalenges to that practice and the jurys are still out about the legality of them. And they dont realy do that much to cut down on either auto accidents or fatalities and injuries. What has had the greatest impact on fatalities in automobile accidents has been seat belt laws and the general improvement in safety built into modern cars. In the 1980s there were an average of fifty plus thousand fatalities every year. Thats down to forty thousand or so but the accident rate and the serious injury rate remains staggeringly high.

My favorite part is the formula 1 race car or the tank question. As for the formula one car, the reason you cannot drive one on the street is because they dont meet federal highway standards for lights, safety equipment, noise and emitions. Otherwise you could do it. As for the tank, as long as you post the required placard on the back, have approprate safety lights and a crew of at least two (commander and driver) it is perfectly leagal on the road as long as it doesnt exceed any weight, hight or width restrictions on that particular road. They are considered farm equipment and there are people who own them and drive them on the road from time to time. It is important to point out that some of those tanks are fully active with working main guns and the capacity to mount machine guns as well. Some even have machine guns if the owner is properly licensed and owns the right weapon.

[Bonedragger]

The attached is one of my favorites about guns

[Wolfegard]

Heh, as usual with these arguments it goes on and on and nobody will change their mind, some on one side and some on the other and then those idiots that dont know which side their on...
Dont yall reckon its time to just walk away?
I say we send this thread out the American way.....
By having a beer and chanting "USA USA!"

[m21]

Originally Posted by ridgerunner

as the owner of multiple firearms ....i have them because some belonged to family and friends, some were gifts, and i own a gun shop

i use safes to protect people from the firearms and ammo that i have

i have no need or desire for any style of grenade or artillery piece other than the firefly sitting in the yard

i have a bomb shelter because my area is a prime target for attacks and we also use it during hurricanes

Now that is a post and reasons I can fully understand.

Until i get to the bomb shelter part. Why the NEED for that ?
Who exactly are you a prime target for ?
If you live on, or very close to a military base I could probably understand that but then again WHO is it that you are prone to attack from that you would need a bomb shelter?


Hurricane protection I can easily understand.

[ridgerunner]

1 nuclear power plant 28 miles away
3 coal facilities within 40 miles
the port of houston under 70 miles
the chemical capitol of texas(passadena) is 80 miles

originaly the shelter was built as a storm bunker but has been upgraded just in case
i do have alot of firearms and there are alot of desperate people out there willing to kill for anything
i didnt start the upgrades until i had kids so yes i am protecting them based on the worse scenario

[Baddog_WOOF]

Originally Posted by ridgerunner

1 nuclear power plant 28 miles away
3 coal facilities within 40 miles
the port of houston under 70 miles
the chemical capitol of texas(passadena) is 80 miles

originaly the shelter was built as a storm bunker but has been upgraded just in case
i do have alot of firearms and there are alot of desperate people out there willing to kill for anything
i didnt start the upgrades until i had kids so yes i am protecting them based on the worse scenario

You will fill your shelter with guns and food.
Too bad you will forget potable water and die of dehydration.

[Baddog_WOOF]

Why are you worried about coal facilities?
Haven't you heard about Clean Coal?
LOL

[ridgerunner]

dipshit 60,000 gallons of water in filtered and treated water stored in 3 20,000 gallon USTs.......and if you dont know what a UST is it is an underground storage tank

and missiles dont give a damn if coal is clean
1 stray missle is all it takes

and dont say modern artilley is foolproof because guidance systems do fail

and puppy just face the fact that i know how to piss you off and you hate that so you get defensive and puff up like a lil pussy cat

[Baddog_WOOF]

Originally Posted by ridgerunner

dipshit 60,000 gallons of water in filtered and treated water stored in 3 20,000 gallon USTs.......and if you dont know what a UST is it is an underground storage tank

I've done UST installations.
I also know that you don't have the intellect to coat the interior of the tanks properly for drinking.

Having done UST installations that can take heavy traffic, I know you don't have the structure to protect the USTs from a heavy truck driving over them, much less any kind of missile or artillery.
Besides, since your probably failed to vent them safely, you will get all kinds of things growing in your water anyway.

Thanks for playing!

[ridgerunner]

puppy i also have worked in installing USTs for fuel use by state and private use so yes i do know how to vent them
also i didnt use steel tanks because the acid levels in the soil here tend to eat the tanks even with an epoxy shell
and i never said the tanks were fortified did i?????
showing you ass arent you

and for the info all it takes to withstand trucks is 8" of reinforced 6000psi concrete and 12" of peagravel or other compacted fill

to be honest you almost sound like that retard darrin we ran off when he left tanknology to come work for us

[JoeDirty]

If Colorado allowed concealed carry then someone carrying a concealed gun in that movie theater could have whipped it out and blasted that motherfucker to Hell before he had a chance to kill all of the people that he did....

Gun laws don't deter criminals. They don't follow laws. That's why they are called "criminals."

The only guns that gun laws remove are the guns of law-abiding citizens.

[ridgerunner]

ok 1st colorado does have a concealed carry permit
2nd the theater opted to disallow firearms to be carried
3rd given that holmes used smoke grenades unless someone was trained in that situation(darkness and smoke and panic) a gun wouldnt have helped
in a panic situation the best most untrained shhoters can hope for is getting close to thier target

and for the record i have never advocated the ownership of "assault" weapons by the general public and automatics should be disallowed

i do advocate certian restrictions on firearms and ammunition purchases but not new laws that stop legal and responsible ownership

[JoeDirty]

Originally Posted by ridgerunner

ok 1st colorado does have a concealed carry permit
2nd the theater opted to disallow firearms to be carried
3rd given that holmes used smoke grenades unless someone was trained in that situation(darkness and smoke and panic) a gun wouldnt have helped
in a panic situation the best most untrained shhoters can hope for is getting close to thier target

and for the record i have never advocated the ownership of "assault" weapons by the general public and automatics should be disallowed

i do advocate certian restrictions on firearms and ammunition purchases but not new laws that stop legal and responsible ownership

I was wrong on one thing in my last post. I had assumed that the entire state of Colorado had been infected with liberal anti-gun nonsense rather than just Aurora. It turns out that there are just some dumbfuck cities in that state with concealed carry bans. Aurora is one of those dumbfuck cities. If you don't believe me...Google it.

If I were sitting in that theater when that bastard entered and began his reign of terror I'd rather have had a way to fight back---untrained or not---instead of being left a sitting duck with no protection by the liberal leaders of Aurora and their dumbfuck anti-gun statutes.

[ridgerunner]

while i appreciate the words id rather take my chances with the moron

[Bonedragger]

If someone in that theater had a carry consealed and had a gun on them the outcome would have been different. I have mine and usualy am carring my H&K .41 pistol and a little ankle holsterwith my Taurus .380 I can guarantee the he would have got about 5 shots off before I put .41 bullet right between his eyes. And would have been hero, but since its not allowed in co to carry concealed look what happened and possibly could have been minimized if some was carring, this is a perfect example of how gun control may have cost many innocent people their lifes.

Their is no way in hell the USA will ever have a ban on gun it would be the bloodiest civil war ever on planet. And its not the type of guns, my most deadliest gun is my Barret .50 cal and it is a bolt action and works just like a hunting rifle. But it can reach out and take someones head off at 2 miles. I have the exact gun he used ar-15 5.56/.223 (actualy several) and it is ment to be a "wounding" weapon. The thought is in war if you wound enemy and he is laying their screaming it bad for the moral of rest of enemy and its gonna take minimum 2 people to drag him to safty, so that's 2 less enemys shooting back at you for every 1 guy you wound, hmm.... I don't know if that is classified info or not can't reember.


Anyway what happend was terrible I wish I would have been their with a pistol.
My thoughts and prayers to all the people who are suffering a loss at this time.
God Bless.

[Distant Lover]

Gun control and weapons control can be effective. When sub machine guns were outlawed people stopped owning them. The same can be said of switch blade knives.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Thanks to President Obama, the Democrats, and the Supreme Court a year or two from now you would be right.

But why should he and his insurance company have to pay just because some gun nut shoots you on accident or on purpose.

No that would be his and his insurance company which makes people carrying liability insurance on every gun they own a very practical thing

Fair comment, but, Should a morbidly obese person receive subsidised healthcare for illnesses directly related to their weight?

[Druidoak]

Originally Posted by Baddog_WOOF

You will fill your shelter with guns and food.
Too bad you will forget potable water and die of dehydration.

Originally Posted by Baddog_WOOF

Why are you worried about coal facilities?
Haven't you heard about Clean Coal?
LOL

Originally Posted by Baddog_WOOF

I've done UST installations.
I also know that you don't have the intellect to coat the interior of the tanks properly for drinking.

Having done UST installations that can take heavy traffic, I know you don't have the structure to protect the USTs from a heavy truck driving over them, much less any kind of missile or artillery.
Besides, since your probably failed to vent them safely, you will get all kinds of things growing in your water anyway.

Thanks for playing!

It's better to keep your mouth shut and thought stupid, than to open your mouth and prove it!

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by Lioness

Again....Hitler was NOT a Christian and it torques my tail to hear anyone spout that utter bullshit...he was evil personified.

The Catholic Church happily counts all people that are christened catholic as one of theirs, their numbers are hugely inflated by calling people that don't even believe in God as catholics. They use these fake high numbers to assert their dominance throughout the world, and this leads to controlling policy.

When the church ceases to claim "none church goers" and those that no longer believe in god, as one of them, then I will agree that Hitler is not a Christian. Because for a start, Hitler was born and raised catholic, and he undoubtedly believed in god and Jesus Christ right up until his death. his beliefs were also twisted with warped pagan ideas, the occult, and religious ideas associated with Nazism.

This is a dangerous path to walk though, there were other high ranking Nazi officials that were solely believers in Christianity. Also Hitler's birthday was celebrated by the church every year Hitler was in power right up until his death, Nazi Germany had an alliance with the church. And if it wasn't for the centuries of brown beating the Jews by the Catholic church, leading many Germans to think Jews were subhuman, the Nazi party would have never been able to build support and have the pre-Holocaust Jews confined to ghettos.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by richief

Why should the theatre be held at fault? Sue the manufacturers and gun shops for created and selling these things.

The person to blame and who is at fault is in custody, sue him.

This is how it works over here.

Originally Posted by stumbler

Paralyzed cop suing Glock after his 3-year-old son shot him




http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/2...-son-shot-him/

[stumbler]

I don't mean to give you short shift on this and admit I'm only skimming because of time constraints but at least let me show you where I'm going.

Originally Posted by tim929

Sorry it took me a while to get back to you on this one but I spent the day on the range and was cleaning my rifle (no joke. I had a really great day and got invited to a shooting match this weekend.) On the subject of registering firearms the way we do cars...The reason we register cas has nothing to do with safety. It has everything to do with raising money. Your registration fees go toward highway and infrastructure development. Its a use tax. As for the driving test, I am and have always been a HUGE proponent that shooting should be taught in highschool the way it was in many states through the 1960's. It wasnt until hand wringing liberals decided that guns were dangerous that many schools stopped teaching firearms safety and many schools had NRA sponsored youth shooting clubs that would compete up to the national level. Many of the countrys best Olympic (TM) marksmen came from the ranks of our nations highschool students. Many highschools had ROTC organizations as well.

No now I'm at least going to argue that the reason we register and license cars is because they were the easiest things in the world to steal and they weren't even branded or earmarked. See before we had cars we registered brands so you could prove ownership of your livestock which was actually way harder to steal than a car.

Originally Posted by tim929

Some schools allowed the shooting to be done in the hallways of certain buildings in the school after hours and bullet traps were used at the end of the hallways. Using this method students could practice indoors when the weather (rain, snow, -40 temperatures) made shooting outside impractical. And girls were encouraged to try out for many school shooting teams. I know people who lettered in shooting sports back in the 1950s.

The shooting range south of my house is named after my great aunt. I cannot tell you more than that because if you could look up the shooting records of my state you would know the town I live in.

And when I was running my newspaper in the 198o's they were still shooting .22s in the old gym until some kid deliberately shot the glass backboard out. Guess what things have changed.

By the way to you know those shooting galleries that lasted at least until the 1960's? They were still shooting 22 shorts until nut cases turned them on the employees or by standers.

Originally Posted by tim929

As for the checkpoints...there have been many legal chalenges to that practice and the jurys are still out about the legality of them. And they dont realy do that much to cut down on either auto accidents or fatalities and injuries. What has had the greatest impact on fatalities in automobile accidents has been seat belt laws and the general improvement in safety built into modern cars. In the 1980s there were an average of fifty plus thousand fatalities every year. Thats down to forty thousand or so but the accident rate and the serious injury rate remains staggeringly high.

Man you're the one who wanted the auto accident argument. I'm just pointing out that we actually try and do things about the carnage on our highways but you say we can't about the carnage at the hands of mad men with guns.

Originally Posted by tim929

My favorite part is the formula 1 race car or the tank question. As for the formula one car, the reason you cannot drive one on the street is because they dont meet federal highway standards for lights, safety equipment, noise and emitions. Otherwise you could do it. As for the tank, as long as you post the required placard on the back, have approprate safety lights and a crew of at least two (commander and driver) it is perfectly leagal on the road as long as it doesnt exceed any weight, hight or width restrictions on that particular road. They are considered farm equipment and there are people who own them and drive them on the road from time to time. It is important to point out that some of those tanks are fully active with working main guns and the capacity to mount machine guns as well. Some even have machine guns if the owner is properly licensed and owns the right weapon.

But those standards are not only constitutional, they are also necessary because you over look the fact that a car designed to do 300 MPH is not safe on the streets and highways. No headlights you know and prone to spinning out.

Same with tanks not safe on the street.

And I thought I brought that up here but if I didn't now that you mention machine guns, fully automatic, shooting clear up to .50 cal., with tens of thousands of them in private hands, how come we don't have any mass killings with them? In fact I can't remember a single one where a licensed owner of a machine gun ever killed anyone on purpose. (Although I can name at least one 8 year-old kid who did shooting one for his birthday present than came back and shot him in the head?

I'll tell you why because you may have a right to own one but they don't just sell them to any fool since the police got out gunned in the 1930's. There's a stringent and thorough licensing process that seems to work just fine.

[Wolfegard]

USA! USA! USA!
Wheres AZRIEL when ya need em? We could use some hilarious pics to flood through here
I continue...
USA! USA! USA!
WOOO!! 'Merica!!

[richief]

This as descended into a stupid argument that cars are unsafer than guns, with some stupid comments like above.
Stop dancing around the subject, guns are safe till they are picked up, then they become dangerous.

[CS natureboy]

Ultra lib news network ABC = Always Be Crooked.....

Aurora Shooting: Another ABC News Report Disputed
Posted: 07/25/2012 5:42 pm Updated: 07/25/2012 5:45 pm








#news_entries #ad_sharebox_260x60 img {padding:0px;margin:0px}





Another ABC News report on the tragic Aurora shooting has been disputed, TVSpy reported on Wednesday.
ABC News reported on Tuesday that sources said James Holmes, the 24-year-old shooting suspect, spit at jail officers "so frequently that at one point he was made to wear a face guard."
Denver ABC-affiliate KMGH later disputed the report. The station's investigative reporter, John Ferrugia, tweeted that "knowledgable" law enforcement sources he reached out to called the report "simply b.s."
The story that appeared on the affiliate's website called out the original report, but did not mention ABC News by name. The original ABC News story now has an editor's note attached.
This is the third reporting hiccup for ABC News since the Aurora shooting. During the network's breaking news coverage of the shooting on Friday, investigative correspondent Brian Ross incorrectly suggested that the shooting suspect was linked to the Tea Party. The network apologized for Ross' blunder.
On Monday, Holmes' mother said that an ABC News report from Friday mischaracterized her conversation with a producer. In the hours immediately following the shooting, ABC News reported that they reached Holmes' mother and said that she told the network, "You have the right person," referring to her son. Holmes' mother clarified her statement and said that she was "referring to herself." ABC News stood by its original report.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...m_hp_ref=media

[Druidoak]

http://www.propublica.org/article/th...uns-in-america

Some interesting information.