Another massacre because of a crazy person

[CellarRat]

Authorities: Weapons Recovered In Oregon Shooting Purchased Legally
www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/10/02/oregon-shooting-weapons_n_8234614.html

Obama and Hilary are sick of this. Me too. But what is the solution? I know what solution the liberals want - no guns. They don't say that, but the reality is they want more gun laws and regulations, more taxes on gun ownership etc. Tricky libs eventually will get their way by regulating and taxing to death the right to gun ownership. The libs will win, if not with abolition, they will win defacto by making gun ownership onerous.

No surprise by the Obama presser, again acting un-presidential admittedly politicizing the massacre.

[psycholojets]

They don't say it but you know? You know them personally? You have had private conversations with them? Oh wait, some right wing political pundit attempting self promotion said it with conviction. Same thing I guess!
You KNOW what liberals want? No issue screams of the conservative propaganda machine like this one. Barak wants your guns...Hillary will take your guns...They aren't saying it, but we KNOW!

Keep drinking the cool aid.

Sent from my SM-G900P using proboards

[IndianSaint]

blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/241449/cuomo-congressional-dems-should-threaten-a-government-shut-down-over-gun-control/

CR I don't have the answer either but here's an article about one NY Dem calling for what you said.

I don't own a gun and I'm not about to impose my morels on anyone who does own a gun.

Everyone should have common sense & respect others' lives. You don't need laws for that; it's basic humanity 101.

I don't need the Ten Commandments to tell me killing is worng. I wouldn't want anyone to kill me or my family so don't expect me to kill you or yours. Common sense.

If someone can't reason or is mentally challenged/depressed that's a totally different issues than gun control IMO.

I don't have statistics but I can assume that most if not all of legally purchased gun owners won't purposefully kill someone. I have to believe that or those people suck.

Criminals/mentally unstable/etc people will find a way to obtain destructive weapons with or without restrictions, most likely illegally. Gun control seems to me to be a false sense of security and it's people like one NY Dem that uses tragedies like yesterday to scare people into agreeing with him. JMO

[IndianSaint]

Oh, I forgot the reason why I attached the link to the article (because I was too busy on my rant).

I'm more upset about the "method" in which this NY Dem wants to push his agenda (more so than what he's trying to accomplish). Last time Gov't was shut down to push someone's agenda it cost us tax payers "$24 Billion and 100,000 jobs".

Hey, I have a novel idea, why don't politicians do the job they were't elected to do, effectively, rather than making it more expensive for taxpayers because the "want their way at whatever the cost". Sounds to me that if you have to resort to extortion then you're not a good politician. JMO

Besides aren't elected officials supposed to serve their constituents? If the majority of NYers want gun control then so be it, he should listen and do it (without costing the entire country more money).

[bigfan]

[CellarRat]

Oct 3, 2015 8:58:52 GMT -5 psycholojets said:

They don't say it but you know? You know them personally? You have had private conversations with them? Oh wait, some right wing political pundit attempting self promotion said it with conviction. Same thing I guess!
You KNOW what liberals want? No issue screams of the conservative propaganda machine like this one. Barak wants your guns...Hillary will take your guns...They aren't saying it, but we KNOW!

Keep drinking the cool aid.

Sent from my SM-G900P using proboards

I think you are on the kool-aid, it's apparent from how excited you get. I haven't see one intelligent response from you. Yes, I think the left's position on gun control is very close to a ban if not a complete ban - like I said above.

Listen I don't have time for idiots like you. I posted the article and you had to start insulting me because you just can not control yourself. Do yourself a favor, just go outside and wash and wax your Toyota Prius. While you are at it give some special attention to your "elect Obama" and "tax the rich" bumper stickers.

[Deleted]

Let's look at the history of the 2nd amendment - when our forefathers set it to paper there was a real concern that the new, untried, untested, unproven Government system being established might just ban families from possessing firearms to seal their power. At that juncture widely held weapons were single shot muskets and a smaller number of single shot rifles, not AR-!5 or AK-47 style combat weapons. Remember, our Government was formed based on an armed revolution, not an uncommon way to overthrow unpopular governments. Also, people used firearms to hunt and put meat on their tables. Market 32's were not yet the norm and around the corner! Furthermore, our newly formed Government wanted to preserve the local militias - there was no National Guard or large standing army and our neighbors to the north and south had issues with us that might translate into a need for a rapidly called up militia. In no case, did the forefathers set the 2nd amendment in place to enable individual citizens to establish personal arsenals which exist today - the recent whacko had 13 guns - well beyond the number needed for self protection.

The Rat, not unexpectedly, believes that those calling for tougher gun laws really want to take guns away from everyone. Nothing could be farther from the truth and I challenge the Rat to find one quote that would prove his case.

So what do we do about the rash of gun violence? We need strict, country wide, consistent rules on gun purchasing and gun possession. They should all be registered. Background checks should be run on all potential purchasers, even those purchasing weapons at gun shows. Those that have psychological problems or a history of mental illness should be prohibited from purchasing firearms. Registration would enable confiscation of guns from those that develop mental issues or issues with the law - the guns would be held until the issues were resolved. There should be a ban on automatic weapons and clips that hold more than 7 or so cartridges. Ammunition sales should be monitored and limited - I can't buy antihistamines at the pharmacy without a check on how many pills I have recently bought but I can go on the internet and buy hundreds of rounds for an AR-15. The quantity of ammunition for target shooters could be controlled by the range where the shooter does his thing.

Those that say we need to have firearms in our homes to protect us from our Government would fall under the mental illness category and be addressed through those requirements!

[CellarRat]

You have said much that I disagree with including the intent of the founders that I will probably get a full response on here when time permits. For now I will just point to your comment about the nut with 13 guns/rifles. One gun is too many for a nut to have. I'm not sure how you determine who is a nut when they haven't been diagnosed as such.

But what concerns me is your statement about not needing 13 guns for home protection. And your point is? Would you limit the amount of guns a person can own? Would you only allow the place that people target shoot to hold the ammo. Some folks, you know the people that "cling to their guns and religion", actually shoot legally on their own property. How would you monitor those folks?

Your response made me laugh - you are proving my point. Libs want to make it so onerous to own a gun that folks won't want to own them.

The 2nd amendment isn't about protecting one's ability to go hunting, to target shoot, or collect guns. The founding fathers realized that individuals should always have the power to protect their liberties including gun ownership.

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

It's been a while since I read the federalist papers but your comments about the founding fathers is way off base. In fact, your last comment which you joke about is actually closer to the truth. You can fool your loyal followers who apparently don't read for themselves but consume what you tell them, but not someone with even a little grasp of their fundamental rights.

[Deleted]

Oct 3, 2015 17:38:53 GMT -5 CellarRat said:

You have said much that I disagree with including the intent of the founders that I will probably get a full response on here when time permits. For now I will just point to your comment about the nut with 13 guns/rifles. One gun is too many for a nut to have. I'm not sure how you determine who is a nut when they haven't been diagnosed as such.

But what concerns me is your statement about not needing 13 guns for home protection. And your point is? Would you limit the amount of guns a person can own? Would you only allow the place that people target shoot to hold the ammo. Some folks, you know the people that "cling to their guns and religion", actually shoot legally on their own property. How would you monitor those folks?

Your response made me laugh - you are proving my point. Libs want to make it so onerous to own a gun that folks won't want to own them.

The 2nd amendment isn't about protecting one's ability to go hunting, to target shoot, or collect guns. The founding fathers realized that individuals should always have the power to protect their liberties including gun ownership.

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

It's been a while since I read the federalist papers but your comments about the founding fathers is way off base. In fact, your last comment which you joke about is actually closer to the truth. You can fool your loyal followers who apparently don't read for themselves but consume what you tell them, but not someone with even a little grasp of their fundamental rights.

Go back and find the writings of the founders that you are referencing and educate those of us that dare to disagree with your always RIGHT view of the world.

[IndianSaint]

I hate to admit it but I partially agree with CR. One gun may be considered too many for a nut/crazy person, depending on the circumstance.

On the other hand a friend of mine has many hunting guns (e.g., a musket load, a bow, a couple shot guns (turkey & deer) a couple high power rifles (bolt action (single shot) and semi automatic), pistol, etc.). All for different types of hunting. I see nothing wrong with law abiding citizens from owning more than one weapon; but criminals having one weapon is way too many. How do we stop criminals from obtaining weapons???

Don't make it harder for law abiding citizens form owning a weapon, rather how can we limit criminals from obtaining weapons? We can't. Criminals will get them illegally anyway. Why burden law abiding citizens from owening weapons?

By the way, I don't own or possess any guns (except maybe a BB gun).

[Deleted]

I fail to see how requiring background checks makes it harder for law abiding citizens to own a weapon. If you are bothered by the possibility that impulse buying would be curtailed because of the waiting period, I guess I can't see that as a problem. We don't have a gun in our home and I would think that if a home invasion was taking place I wouldn't have the time to run to my neighborhood gun shop and get one anyway. If automatic, military style weapons are ok - where do you draw the line? I'd prefer an RPG so I could disable a vehicle. Would that fall under my 2nd amendment rights? How about a surplus Sherman tank from WWII - that would serve as a major deterrent and home protection system. Or what about a .50 caliber machine gun?

[CellarRat]

Oct 3, 2015 18:56:25 GMT -5 IndianSaint said:

I hate to admit it but I partially agree with CR. One gun may be considered too many for a nut/crazy person, depending on the circumstance.

On the other hand a friend of mine has many hunting guns (e.g., a musket load, a bow, a couple shot guns (turkey & deer) a couple high power rifles (bolt action (single shot) and semi automatic), pistol, etc.). All for different types of hunting. I see nothing wrong with law abiding citizens from owning more than one weapon; but criminals having one weapon is way too many. How do we stop criminals from obtaining weapons???

Don't make it harder for law abiding citizens form owning a weapon, rather how can we limit criminals from obtaining weapons? We can't. Criminals will get them illegally anyway. Why burden law abiding citizens from owening weapons?

By the way, I don't own or possess any guns (except maybe a BB gun).

I hate the fact that you agree with me! You see I agree with the founding fathers' collective wisdom not yours or MP's. Your personal story is very touching, what if for some reason you didn't have that friend, would your opinion be the same? Again, another liberal but for your personal experience wouldn't know better. That's why decisions are based on reason not emotion. You came to the right conclusion, but just because of fate.

So please do me a favor don't agree with me in such condescending terms, you sound like an idiot when you do.

[IndianSaint]

Wow!?!

I simply don't think others should impose their morels on others. Just like I don't think "gun control" will reduce crime or senseless killings. Forgive me for partially agreeing with you (CR).

And I'm the idiot?

[IndianSaint]

I wouldn't care if someone had a panzer tank, as long as the didn't commit a crime with it.

[Deleted]

Rat, why do you ALWAYS resort to personal insults and attacks instead of making clear, concise arguments with facts to back up your positions? Calling people idiots or pretending to "know" what another person thinks even when you have no friggin' clue what they really believe just destroys any modicum of credibility you might have. Your emotions are exposed when you can't even construct a simple sentence - e.g., "Again, another liberal but for your personal experience wouldn't know better." - WTF is that supposed to be saying? Take a deep breath, relax your shoulders, think, compose, read, correct, think again and the click on "Post Quick Reply"! LOL! OBTW, calling someone a Liberal is only an insult as seen from your closed mind little cellar - most of us are proud of the liberal, free thinking label.