START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
Group Discussions
Sandy Hook: STRONG evidence of a hoax.
1 year ago

I know this is sensitive stuff, but trust me, there's no blood and gore in this video.  LOTS of very damning evidence against our gov't though.  VERY good stuff.  Watch it all, before critiquing, please. 



Gun control?  Lying governments and bad actors are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. 

1 year ago

I have seen this stuff going around. I have not had time to check out any of it.

Is there clear evidence that people who were actors, who had no children killed in the incident, really were interviewed as if they were victims?

...

1 year ago

Actually, yeah.  One of the fathers of a "victim" really loused up:

at around 9:20 in the vid, they show him having a good laugh, asking "are we ready?", then breathing himself into character, getting his sad face on, then addressing the media.  Next, they show a still shot of Obama posing with the grieving family; except that the "dead" little girl is on his lap with them.  Then, there's the many internet memorial pages that popped up days before the actual event.  They really were sloppy with this one.  There's lots of other good stuff in the video, but the father's screw-ups were one of the main sticking points for me.  That, and the Doctor's report, too.  That guy didn't read his script right at all, lol. 

It's relieving, actually, because it would appear that no one was actually hurt in this false flag.  That's good news to me.  The kids they interviewed were not at all traumatized seeming.  One seemed rather delighted.  The creepy guy who harbored the 6 kids, his story flopped as much as Romney's did this past year.   Bad, bad stuff. 

1 year ago

I am sorry but this is to me outrageous.  Well, I haven't seen this particular video yet but have read enough of nutjobs claiming Obama did this. 

SHane, have you had anyone in your family die recently?  I do remember seeing that video that night with the man smiling as he talked about his daughter.  I did think it odd.  I then remembered doing much the same myself after my Dad died.  All laughing and smiling about the memories (thought he had all been crying a few minutes earlier).

Well, I haven't watched.  I have heard the claim about the daughter being alive.  Read about the poor man who allegedly helped the six kids being harrassed.

Very sad.

1 year ago

Nancy, the video is kind of long but it is different than other stuff I've seen out on this.  Watch it. 


You know I laughed and joked too when people important to me died.  However, even during that joking around, you still probably did not look like this guy and transform so quickly into sorrow.   It is odd.   Still I can't say how one reacts to something.  We are all different.



This post was modified from its original form on 16 Jan, 8:23
I am reposting this response from another group here...
1 year ago

Hey Shane,

Hope you are doing well. 

I watched the video.  All of it.  Some compelling things relayed.  Now, I really don't normally go for the full out conspiracy theory idea.  Maybe in part because I don't want to believe what might be.  I also think to each conspiracy lies certain truths or evidences.  Things that can make a story valid depending on the bend you make.

Some points that hit me in the video was the Parker father coming in all smiles to the press conference.  His eyes were happy, face appeared stress free to change into the man he was when he began to speak.  I can't say though, who knows how this man reacts to lifes events.

The older gentlemen with the 6 children story, I have to admit.  Even the day of the tragedy, or whenever it was his first interview was.  He struck me funny, like this dude just wants attention.  Making it about him and what he did and how felt.  It was just a bit dramatic, even in this event.  Now, it could be as said in the video, he is with the actors guild.  So maybe he just one of those dramatic types.  Don't know.

The facebook pages being created prior to the incident are disturbing.

I guess what I am saying is, interesting. 

It certainly did push the gun issue.  I just don't know.

Like with 9/11, there is compelling information there. 

I just don't know.  I have to go with my gut and just say I will consider it.  I don't put much past the government.   Yet, I still hold some faith.

1 year ago

I will watch it later though.

Here is a site I found.  I could easily debunk most of what I read here.

http://www.sandyhookhoax.com/

1 year ago

I saw your reply in the other group, Suzanne, and replied there, too. 

Like I said, I know this is sensitive stuff.  And certainly, if I thought this video was just crap, I wouldn't post it, because of that.  But I felt compelled to after watching it.  As I said in the other group, I have yet to hear from anyone who could say they were there, or knew personally anyone who was.  All the people lashing out because it's insensitive are 3rd party, they're on the outside looking in, the same as I am, but have allowed emotion to ovveride any desire for answers.  They don't watch it, they dump on it, like people are wont to do when faced with anything that is uncomfortable, or might pop their bubble of "reality". 

I don't suggest buying anything hook, line, and sinker.  Not from me, not from video-makers, but not from the media or from our leaders, either.  Objectivity.  Detective work.  Courtroom decorum.  That's what's needed.  That's all I really ask for. 

1 year ago

I do know that about you Shane.  About to watch the video.

1 year ago

OK.  I did find the idea of FEMA and Homeland Security drills to be quite interesting.  I had already started thinking along those lines.  On the other hand, I have been part of drills and seen them elsewhere.  Quite odd.

 

Webpages?  You CAN fake a webpage.  Get Dreamweaver and never actually upload what you Made.  Much of those pages could be faked.

 

WHy would those people allow this to happen to themselves?  Why woudl Victoria Soto allow that to happen to her name? 

 

I just went to the RIP Victoria Soto page and it says it was created on Dec. 15, 2012.  Saw up above where someone posted something showing the Dec. 10 date but how do you know it wasn't all fake?

1 year ago

I also found this:  on Facebook:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/ban-sandy-hook-hoax-websites-channels-and-videos/WkKmcGnG

No, I would not sign it.  Free speech.

1 year ago

It's hard to say, at this point.  After watching the vid, in some ways, I felt relief, like wow, maybe no one was actually shot...then Rebecca and a few others finally chimed in and were able to ascertain that apparently the shooting itself was real.  However, the actual footage showed in the video, of the parents and the creepy dude and the doctor, plus the photo of Obama with the "dead" girl on his lap, that was all very strong evidence to me, and would be a lot harder to fake.  They used stuff right out of the mainstream media itself. 

Plus, like I said, I was pretty certain, even before, that real or not, the shooting was set up by someone much smarter than a dumb teenager with a grudge.  These types of crimes are becoming more and more common every day.  Music, movies, and video games have been violent since forever; entertainment is LESS bloody than is was in Ancient Rome, so, I can't chalk it up to "sign of the times" or any of that stuff.  This is happening, in my opinion, because the gov't is making it happen, real or not, and doing their best to get us to gladly tear our constitutional rights in half. 

So, I post these things in the vain hope that people will reconsider.  It's a fruitless effort, mostly, but it feels better than doing nothing about it. 

1 year ago

"So, I post these things in the vain hope that people will reconsider.  It's a fruitless effort, mostly, but it feels better than doing nothing about it. "

Shane, I think many of us have,  But think about this- how can you get a whole twon or whole state for that matter to go along with something like this?  Don't you think someone would be out there saying it's a lie?  Someone who actually lives there?  Like that old guy Rosen who wants his 15 min.  What a better way than to confess. 

Yeah, many strange things.  That doesn't make it a complete hoax.

1 year ago


Confusion being manipulated is what it sounds like.

After Columbine, Red Lake, the Amish school, Virgina Tech, people are having issues believing the Sandy Hook shooting?

I don't know how to explain the dad laughing then going sad mode but there is no real evidence I see that supports a hoax.

It's like 9/11, people still think it was an orchestrated event even though in 12 years not one piece of credible evidence has surfaced to support that theory.

Now that Sandy Hook has been blessed by the tin foil hat crews this hoax crap will linger around for years...



This post was modified from its original form on 17 Jan, 8:13
Sandy Hook Truther movement
1 year ago

Seriously..do people have nothing better to do..What is wrong with these people who have such little regard for the families/the victims.. that they go off and create such drama..absurdity and..that they actually believe the garbage they spew out..

Its just unbelievable..

Horrible
1 year ago

This Conspiracy “theory” is very easily debunked with minimal research. I do not know if people really believe this, or are just so mean spirited they perpetuate this for their own agenda.
Before the children from this tragedy were even buried, the rightwing microcosm here at Care2 was saying the government; (Obama) was behind this horrific act to size their guns.
The end of this video provides the same message. Its horrible.

1 year ago

This Conspiracy “theory” is very easily debunked with minimal research. I do not know if people really believe this, or are just so mean spirited they perpetuate this for their own agenda.


I think it's the latter.  They are having a tantrum over the threat of having their assault weapon toys taken away from them.  People are focusing on the fact that so many small children were murdered - and they are horrified.  So, the NRA's marketing thugs will now attempt to discredit the victims and their families.  

I have never seen any organization stoop so low. The people who put this out are sub-human. I have to ask myself what they have planned next to make bad marketing history.  

1 year ago

When Mass Murder is Really Just Mass Murder: Fully Exposing the Most Deceptive Viral Video of 2013

"This should’ve been everyone’s first warning sign that the Fully Exposed video was a fraud. At the very beginning at the 0:18 mark, the text reads, “a lone gunman enter the school around 8:40am.” Not true, he entered the building at about 9:30am. The doors would’ve still been unlocked at 8:40, meaning he wouldn’t have had to shoot the glass to get in and students would’ve still be arriving. The schedule for Sandy Hook elementary is 9:10 Pledge of Allegiance, 9:15 outside doors locked. That’s extremely poor investigative skills right off the bat."

http://aattp.org/when-mass-murder-is-really-just-mass-murder-fully-exposing-the-most-deceptive-viral-video-of-2013/
 

1 year ago

When Alex Jones blesses a story you know it needs to questioned...

1 year ago


Yup.
 

1 year ago


Not trying to crap on Shane. There do appear to be some significant irregularities, but to make that giant leap to a conspiracy by the Obama administration to take everyone's gun away is a bit much.
 

1 year ago

What stuns and amazes me is how hateful and insensitive this story is.  

1 year ago

I agree with the idea that some of it is hateful.

But Shane is not being hateful and the particular video posted here was not either.

I have seen far worse elsewhere.

1 year ago

No, I am glad that Shane posted this story.  I had not heard this. But Shane has posted it as though he feels there may be a great deal of truth in it - and that surprises me. I have great respect for Shane. 

The story is truly hateful.  To demonize the parents of those murdered children is awful - and that is what this story does.  

1 year ago

Angelca, I know you're horrified, and I get that.  A lot of people are.  I'm empathic, myself, so once again, I wouldn't post this lightly.  I did watch it, though, and while I'm not totally sold, either, I do think the evidence is strong in this case, it really is.  It's not exactly proof, by definition, but it is evidence.  I feel it should be considered. 

And yes, Alex Jones is certainly questionable.  His zealousness is dangerous to his own cause, I think.  But, even the devil doesn't lie ALL the time. 

As far as the insensitivity part, personally, I found it quite nice to think that perhaps a bunch of small children might not have been murdered.  That would be quite a relief if it could be confirmed.  There is fear involved in this matter, yes, fear, revulsion, ans all that.  But there's hope, too.  Sketchy?  Sure.  But some is better than none. 

If I think of this as a courtroom; or a jury room, rather; as a juror, I would certainly have to insist on examining some of this very closely.  The Parker guy's behavior?  That was news footage, not doctored junk form the 'net.  That guy had a definite smug air about him.  He wasn't just smiling, he was damn near gloating.  Then got his game-face on.  That to me was very blatant.  Circumstancial, sure, not enough to convict, but certainly deserving of some questionability. 
The Doctor...that guy was a blubbering fool.  My jury's out on him, but he certainly doesn't earn any trust or confidence. 
Then there's the multiple premature memorial pages.  They can be fabricated, yes.  But should they be discounted off-hand in such a way that we cannot even entertain the possibility of having been decieved in this?  I think not. 

As to the 2nd amendment, yeah, I'm all for keeping it intact.  Even if we don't believe in the common conspiracies out there, one thing I've not recieved any satisfactory answer to is this basic question:

"How can 500+ highly educated, well-resourced and powerful people all collectively fail so miserably; especially when the solutions to the problems we face as a nation are fairly easy fixes; if they are not failing on purpose?"
And even if that isn't enough to give a person pause enough to consider we may be looking at serious trouble from above; the more common criminals down in the dirt with the rest of us dogs will certainly not turn over their guns, and the up-and-coming criminals of future generations will certainly find ways to get what they want.  People in general usually do, if they want it bad enough.  And a criminal mind; free of inhibition, bent on murder with little regard for Human life; not even their own, most likely; is not going to care what the law has to say. 

So, to paraphrase one of the best anti-heroes, like, ever, throughout time:  "Faith in authority and hokey documents are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."    (20 points for anyone who can name the character, 50 for anyone who can un-paraphrase back the original quote! lol!) 

It does make sense, though. 

On the other hand, if the shooting part was truly real, it still doesn't mean the Parker guy wasn't an actor.  The stillshot of his daughter, alive and well, and sitting on Obama's lap is pretty uncanny, I should think.  They're milking this for all it's worth, set-up or not.  The NRA may not be the nicest guys in the world, but next to the gov't itself, they're pretty mild.  The lesser of the two evils, to be sure.  And that's what this country's built on, after all: the lesser of two evils.  Every four years we choose one.  Like Gozer in the original Ghostbusters: "Choose the form of the destructor!" 





1 year ago

No Shane.  This is not evidence.  Justy visit Newtown and see for yourself.

1 year ago

And why shouldn't the president enlist the aid of the victim's families?  You think those people don't want to get assault weapons off the street?  Right now, those families are the biggest threat there is to the perceived sanctity of the NRA.  The NRA has disgraced itself trying to discredit them - and here is one more example of their pathetic attempts at turning the victims' families into the villains.  In reality, the NRA is the villain.  The stranglehold the NRA has had over factions of our government is appalling.  It is going to end and the NRA will stop at nothing to change that fact.

How do you know that the Alex Jones video doesn't have screwed up (on purpose) editing that they are not tellling you about?  Do you know if Alex Jones gets paid by the NRA for printing this and shucking this video all over the internet? Until you do, you just can't call this evidence.  

Shane...
1 year ago

Star Wars, Hans Solo


I find your lack of faith disturbing. ... Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.

1 year ago

Truth be told, both sides are manipulating this event and those families.

This issue needs to be spoken with reason and not emotional pulling at the heart strings.

both sides are manipulating
1 year ago

Could you elaborate Suazanne I do not understand your point,

Thanks,
Michael

1 year ago

Michael, let's face it.   This issue has not come up because of this one event.  Sides were drawn long before this or many other events.  You have gun advocates and then you have those that would like to limit them or eliminate them altogether.

Any tragedy that occurs each side comes out full force on if there were no weapons like this, and the other if there were more weapons like this.

So many things come in to play beyond the actual weapon in these instances.  Matters that are rarely addressed in a serious manner.

Both sides grab on to the moment and run with the gun and ammo chatter, rather than reaching any real comprehensive initiatives to avoid this in the future, which certainly does not only apply to the weapon. 

To act upon only one part is missing the big picture.

I also think in this particular situation certain aspects are highlighted by each side to push their own agenda.  Let the truth come out, answers be answered and work from there.  To dramatize this further by all involved is not helpful.   To not look at the entirety is fruitless.

Does that make sense?



This post was modified from its original form on 18 Jan, 17:32
1 year ago

Do you think that these families are indifferent about the NRA's agenda?  Because Obama has let the families speak out and provided opportunities for them to do that, you say, Suzanne, that the families are  being manipulated.  But if my son had been a victim there and I had to listen to the insensitive and rather cruelly indifferent money grubbing of the NRA's, I would be speaking out, too.  You bet I would be speaking out.  Good for the president that he gave these Americans a platform to do just that.  You can call it manipulation, but it is hardly what the NRA is doing to further it's profit-making capabilities AT THE EXPENSE of the victims.

1 year ago

Also, anything by Alex Jones hardly adds to the "entirety."  Are you kidding me?

I just posted and it poofed....
1 year ago

Angelica, first I would ask that you speak a tiny bit respectfully to me.  Are you kidding me?

Have you ever heard me promote Alex Jones?


My response to your other post is that although distasteful every one in this country has a right to free speech and action to protect what they hold dear and true.  So long as it does not harm another.  Yes, this emotionally may damage these families, not unlike 911 and the many friends and family members who have endured years of same.

I didn't necessarily mean the families were being manipulated but rather some of the facts involved were being slanted to each sides advantage.

My other post was better, and quite honestly your Are you kidding me comment kind of pissed me off and I don't feel like explaining anything to you.  You seem to have your mind set on how I think on this.  So you can run with that, okay.

Suzanne
1 year ago

Suzanne,
There are normally two sides I grant you that Suzanne, but on this issue and on guns the far right so far off the rails it is scary. There is no leadership to rein them in; there is honestly not a left equivalent on this. This video is reprehensible these are people who are using the death of children, harassing the families of the slain children in the name of a “theory” to put the blame of this tragedy on the “government” read President Obama, in order to stall and divert an honest discussion on gun control.

1 year ago

Sounds kind of familiar to me...

I will grant you it is totally wrong.  Just as in past instances as well.

1 year ago

Michael, to which I would add only that their machinations are designed to stall and divert - and continue their high profit margin.  Let's not forget what the NRA truly is.  It is a marketing group for gun manufacturers.  The more varied the assault weapons on the street, the more the profit for the NRA.

1 year ago

Just as an FYI, do you have any idea of the number of children who died on 911 and their ages?  Why is it more acceptable to believe the government was behind that than this?  Speaking in general terms not any one person here specifically.

I am not being cold-hearted.  Both are tremendous tragedies on so many levels. 

I do not know why anyone would be surprised this would come up as conspiracy.  Don't they all lately?

In all honesty, I have seen some crap put out there that was so over the top that I didn't even watch most of it and I let the posters know it was disgusting. 

Out of courtesy to Shane I watched this in its entirety and there were some interesting issues that came up.  Did I ever think this was a government plot, no.  I do think they took full advantage of the event though to push along an agenda that has been out there for some time.

The NRA is trying to protect theirs and the White House is taking advantage of not letting a tragedy go to waste.  Two fighters duking it out with everything they got.

Who wins...who loses...

I guess it all remains to be seen.




This post was modified from its original form on 18 Jan, 18:30



This post was modified from its original form on 18 Jan, 18:33
1 year ago

I also watched it in its entirety and there is some compelling information there.  Much of it CAN be debunked and has been by snopes and in another link in another group.

I can see how this tragedy is being used both by the NRA ans by the government to achieve an agenda. 

1 year ago

Why do people talk about the NRA as if it were only conservatives that are members and or simply support it because they are owners of guns..

That is absurd..So before the liberals goes ape shitt on the conservatives..they might want to check on the many liberals that do support them..

I guess that the biggest reason why I try hard to stay away from any political groups..It just seems that both sides put each other into tight little boxes and have they all have tunnel vision in it..And that both sides..(some not all) always have to get so disrespectful and downright ugly in these discussions..

It's really such a sad shame..and certainly does not win an argument..nor does it make one look good at all..

I do agree with those here who have expressed that both sides indeed use these things for their own agenda..

I have seen some crazy conspiracies out there..but this one really took the cake..And yes I did watch the entire video..

Big waste of my time..

1 year ago

As a lliberal, I can tell you that I am not against anyone who is responsible owning a handgun for protection.  I would have to sadly consider owning one if I lived alone.  And I would train myself to use it.  But that is not what this is about.

 If the NRA were a reasonable organization, my take on them would be different.  I think that their response to the Newtown massacre has branded them forever as an organization that is just as evil as it can be.  I do believe that they are a marketing group for gun manufacturers.  This by itself is not bad because everyone has the right to make a profit.  But they have chosen to put money head of morals and money ahead of the value of human life itself.  They want the freedom for everyone and anyone to own a huge assortment of assault weaponry. There are 100 clip magazines out there and the NRA supports that.  They don't want any restrictions on gun purchases at all.  This is not even remotely reasonable.

Who stands to gain from this story that Shane posted?  I believe it is the NRA.  Blaming the victims is a horrible strategy that, with regard to Newtown where so many small children were shot 11 times or more, is particularly offensive.  

I would own a gun if I needed to.  But after all of this, I would never become a member of the NRA.  That's just my opinion.  I have strong feelings about this.  I applaud the president's efforts at attempting to put some controls on gun purchases.  It's about time.

Yesterday I learned that the ATF has not had anyone heading the department for many years, because the NRA wouldn't stand for it (and they have purchased so many congressmen - some Dems, evidently).  Who the hell is the NRA to decide whether someone heads the ATF?  Who the hell are they to decide that they can push the government around to allow assault weaponry on the streets?

Seriously, screw the NRA.  

1 year ago

My response to your other post is that although distasteful every one in this country has a right to free speech and action to protect what they hold dear and true.  So long as it does not harm another.  Yes, this emotionally may damage these families, not unlike 911 and the many friends and family members who have endured years of same.


Suzanne, I think these families have already been as emotionally damaged as they could ever possibly be by the loss of their precious children - and in such a horrible manner. Let's allow them speak out if they want to.  No one is forcing them to do that.  The media - CNN in particular, gave all the parents a forum to talk about their children already.  These parents, certainly, have a huge right to speak in this debate on gun control and unlimited assault weapons on the street.  And we should listen to what they have to say. 

I am a bit confused by your freedom of speech comment.  That is a given.  I agree that we all have the right to freedom of speech.  I am not sure why you are telling me that.  Could you elaborate a little, please?

1 year ago

Angelica, show me where I ever said the parents should not speak out as they would like.  Show me where I ever suggested they shouldn't.

Did I ever say or suggest these families have not been traumatized?  Please show me.

Then maybe I will continue a conversation with you or elaborate a thought for you, probably not though.  I don't think you read in full or comprehend what I am saying at all.   You read with your mind made up on something, some image.  Run with it...

1 year ago

Dee, I can see what you are saying

1 year ago

Obama, Obama, Obama.   Research him a little.  (and no, I don't mean the birther thing, who cares where he came from, look at what he's been DOING.)  He sucks.  A lot.  Like, big time.  Stinks to high-Heaven. 

Anyway, the other sticking point here:  the families.  Maybe you think this video is bogus, but like Suzanne said:

This issue needs to be spoken with reason and not emotional pulling at the heart strings.

Exactly.  And like I said, the photo of the alleged victim on Obama's lap kind of takes the "warm & fuzzy" feeling out of the picture entirely. 

Maybe you think the film-maker's a jerk, maybe good ol' snopes (another internet site, go figure.  Must be gospel....) shot a few points down.  Maybe there were really people killed.  That STILL doesn't mean there isn't something wrong with the story we've been "officially" given. 

1 year ago

I really have to say here, as far as "both sides" exploiting this tragedy, the NRA and most pro-gun organizations remained for the most part silent in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, Obama on the other hand did not even wait for the victims to be properly laid to rest before going on the attack which is what initiated the opposing responses, in my opinion Obama more then anyone took advantage of this tragedy to push forward an agenda based on emotions rather then factual reasoned data that strongly disproves his approach as being anywhere near effective, for a very short period our country was united, all in disgust and anger over what happened, leaving open a door for meaningful discussion on finding real solutions which could have gained overwhelming agreement, but, now as we have seen happen over and over again, Obama has effectively caused a divide in our country that never should have been, instead of assuring our children's safety in school we are back to the never ending arguments on gun rights, of course the NRA and other pro-gun organizations stepped in, what choice were they given but to?

1 year ago

How do the deaths of all those children not pull at everyone's heart strings?  Face it, this was awful beyond belief.  

Obama did not cause the divide in our country.   The massacre itself opened up the fact that there is a divide in our country.  And if you look at the most recent polls, you will see that liberals and conservatives are pretty much in agreement that assault weapons should be taken off the streets and that gun purchases should be regulated.

1 year ago

Suzanne, you said the families were being manipulated by BOTH sides.  The side that wants gun control has simply given the parents a venue to speak out.  So, I do not see how that is manipulation.  You also suggested that speaking out with the president could damage them emotionally.  My response was that they have been as emotionally damaged as anyone could ever be.  And what emotional health they have left will be hurt by this kind of story.  Blaming the families and calling their profound losses into question is sick. But that is what the NRA is doing.


It seems to me that the pro NRA people would like to blame the gun control advocates for the same offenses committed by their own side.  It doesn't fly.



This post was modified from its original form on 19 Jan, 19:56
1 year ago

Angelica,

      From what I have seen lately on the web and in the media, most of those opposed to so-called "assault weapons", dont even know what they are, its actually a term originally made up by anti-gun advocates, and the new proposals being put forth to classify what determines an "assault weapon"  is completely irrational and would reclassify the majority of weapons including the most common hunting rifles and shotguns as assault weapons, leaving those of us who are actually familiar with guns shaking our heads in disbelief of the total ignorance being shown on the matter.

If this be true, then what?
1 year ago

It's hard for some people to imagine even for a moment that the government could be as corrupt as it actually is. This whole thread demonstrates that very convincingly.

1 year ago

I am not buying the argument that nobody but an owner of an asault weapon even knows what an asasult weapon is. Sorry.  I am against anyone on the street, anyone not in the military, owning an assault weapon. 

So Sarvo, are you saying that because the president wants to institute some regulation of gun ownership, then the government is corrupt?  You have no criticism for the NRA and this story?

1 year ago

And by the way, Clinton gave us a full decade worth of ban on certain weapons and magazine capacity's only to prove it had NO effect on reducing gun violence, such thing may give you a warm fuzzy feeling, but warm fuzzy feelings dont protect our children and does not reduce crime. Increase and enforce the most strict punishment possible for those who commit gun related crime.

1 year ago

So what is one Angelica? is it based on looks? function? mag capacity? caliber? I would really like to know in your opinion what classifies a weapon as an "assault weapon", seriously!

1 year ago


I love how the right-wing nuts argue semantics.
 

1 year ago

semantics my ass, what uniformed people are so paranoid towards, that which they consider "assault weapons", is based totally on cosmetics, if it looks mean and scary it must have some sort of super powers thats not shared by their more cosmetically attractive counterparts.

1 year ago

And, if it were only "right-wing nuts" who shared my opinion, we wouldn't be discussing this issue at all right now.

1 year ago


Let's, for the sake of argument, say that you somehow prove that technically, a weapon considered an assault weapon is not actually an assault weapon. What the hell is your point? That it's not dangerous, and is perfectly acceptable to sell to the general public?

Sorry, but if it goes rat-a-tat-tat, it's an assault weapon, and the reason we're discussing this issue is because a large number of people have been killed by just such a weapon in the last six months and will be again.
 



This post was modified from its original form on 19 Jan, 22:09
1 year ago

Christian,

less people have been killed by what most refer to as an assault weapon then by any other style of gun, if you want to consider the number killed by guns each year vs the type of weapon used, then so-called assault weapons come in last place.

What is an assualt weapon... http://www.assaultweapon.info/



This post was modified from its original form on 19 Jan, 22:20
1 year ago

Dee made a good point, earlier, in regards to the "right vs left" nonsense.  As Chris Rock says, "Anyone who makes their mind up before they've even hit an issue is a _____ idiot." 

In any one person, there are things that they will be conservative about, and things they will be liberal about, and things that they will be moderate about. 

All this left vs. right stuff makes debates far less intellectual, and more on the level with sports-team rivalries and religious debates.  Bandwagon vs. bandwagon.  "A person is smart, but people are foolish."  Something to keep in mind.  

Also, to toss all anti-gun-control people into the same bag with the NRA is silly, too.  I for one couldn't care less about the NRA, but I certainly support the 2nd Amendment.  Whether its original intention was to guard against tyranny or not, the window's open, either way, and I do believe for our well-being it needs to stay that way. 

Furthermore, if a criminal is intent on murder, he's gonna find himself a gun.  There are even people that can forge and build their own, I'm quite sure.  So, legal or not, they will always be present.  It's not super-secret technology that only the official manufactureres can make. 

So, yeah, keep a good blaster at your side, kids.  (lol, And congrats to Suzanne, 500 points to you, since you responded with a Vader quote!) 

1 year ago

What Sarvo was saying is literally that people find it difficult to believe just how deep the filth lies in our gov't, and that this thread illustrates that.  I very much agree. 

Many still cling desperately to the (most likely) vain hope that at some point, Obama, or some other "hero" is going to emerge and really turn things around.  I'm not holding my breath. 

1 year ago

How corrupt is the government? Does anyone here know anything at all about the corporatocracy? Do they all believe everything they're told on their TVs? How naieve can they be?

1 year ago

Is this thread about our government?  Or is it about a sleazy story put out by those who stand to lose big profits if guns are regulated?  

To those who think that the government is the guilty party here, I would ask you - does anyone need a 30 clip or a 100 clip magazine?  Please explain to me how armor-piercing bullets are covered by the second amendment.  Does everyone in America have the right to own an Uzi? Do those who purchase such weaponry have the right not to be registered, or have a background check done on them, or be scrutinized in any way?  

I bet if all of you gun rights advocates lived next door to someone who had an arsenal filled with weapons like these, and you had small children, you'd be really concerned. And if I was a parent of very small children, I would want to know where my right to safety and peace of mind begins and my neighbor's right to own weaponry that could kill 30 - 100 people without having to reload, plus be able to kill cops who wear armor, ends.  Is this unreasonable of me? I think not.

1 year ago

Allen, your very fanciful interpretation of just what an assault weapon is (something imaginary in the minds of liberals) has given me my first big laugh of the day.  Thank you ( I guess).



This post was modified from its original form on 20 Jan, 8:28
Outlaw guns and...
1 year ago

...only the outlaws will have 'em.

1 year ago

I give up.  You cannot suggest the need for change with minds that are closed.  Anyone who knows about the hideous massacre at Sandy Hook and still clings to the NRA's philosophy, is someone whose mind is closed to the possibility that we can prevent another Sandy Hook from occurring.  That - or you simply don't care.

1 year ago

I do not own a gun and never have and never will.  But Sarvo;s comment imeediately above yours is 100% correct.

No matter what, there will be a black market for guns.  (Just as there is for cars and license plates, etc.) 

1 year ago

Yes, but if that is the only comment Sarvo makes after this tragedy, implying that we should just shrug our shoulders and forget about it, then in my opinion, Sarvo is dead wrong. 

1 year ago

Angelica,

again you show ignorance towards firearms, did you know that armor piercing bullets are a myth? what people are talking about when they say such things is hollow point vs ball ammo, hollow point designed for self defense because it flattens out on impact with a soft target (ie flesh) creating a larger wound, ball ammo is solid lead made for target/practice (the one wrongly labeled armor piercing, because its not), its made of lead which is still soft and flattens against a harder target and is the cheaper of the two to purchase, not considered a good choice for self defense. And uzi? you would be talking about a semi-auto rifle cosmetically made to ""look" like an uzi however operates the exact same as ANY semi-auto rifle, and you can argue large capacity magazines all you want, because as I already pointed out we had a ban on them for ten years, the ban was allowed to expire because it had proved to have no effect in reducing crime, it was a feel-good measure that did nothing whatsoever, you have fallen victim to false and misguided information being spread around by those with anti-gun agenda's. you have in-fact been lied to, yet you embrace it even when proof to the contrary is presented, that of course is your right, I will however point out and correct such lies and misinformation whenever I see it. Try for once to accept the obvious, bad people dont follow laws, even laws with good intentions...



This post was modified from its original form on 20 Jan, 10:26
1 year ago

What I heard on TV this morning (and have not verfied).

The shooter who shot Gabbie Cliffords had passed licensing checks.

The shooter from the movie theatre this summer had passed two licesning checks.

The shooter from Newtown used legal firearms.

So tell me how requiring licenses is going to help.

I also remember right after Newtown, people were calling for more mental health help. 

Niether one is the answer.  The answer is in US.  We have gotten nastier and nastier and more corrupt.  When people see they can't get ahead very readily- they give up.  They get angry. Some join militias.  Etc. 

We need to think about the problems in our society that are making these shottings happen.

1 year ago

Focus in on only one direction and speak of closed minds in the same breath.  Priceless...

1 year ago

Nancy, you posted while I was.  My comment was not directed at you

There is so much more to all of it than just one piece or even one group.

1 year ago

I don't think Sarvo was suggesting that at all.

I also appreciate the input Allen provides as I certainly bear no expertise with weapons.



This post was modified from its original form on 20 Jan, 10:36
1 year ago

I do realize that but thank anyway.

At this point, I would have no problem going back to the assault weapon bans that expired during Bush's admin.  But other than that- can't see doing anything else.  It is a divisive issue and is part of that whole thing I addressed above. 

1 year ago

:""We need to think about the problems in our society that are making these shootings happen""

Exactly! And we need to make any crime involving a firearm, even illegal possession of a firearm, a federal offense with a mandatory stiff minimum sentence, 

1 year ago


This post was modified from its original form on 20 Jan, 10:36
1 year ago

Breaking: Five Dead in South Valley Shooting
Published on January 20th, 2013
Written by: Nancy Tipton / ABQJournal.com

A male juvenile is in custody this morning following a shooting in the South Valley that left five people dead.

In an email from Bernalillo County officials, a shooting took place on Long Lane SW Saturday evening. Deputies were dispatched and found an adult male, an adult female and three children dead.

All victims appeared to have suffered multiple gunshot wounds. Multiple weapons appeared to have been used including an assault-type rifle. The investigation is ongoing and the identities of the victims have not been release, officials said.

A male  juvenile is in custody and is being charged with two counts of murder, and three counts of child abuse resulting in death.

More on this as it develops.

http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2013/01/20/abqnewsseeker/breaking-five-dead-in-south-valley-shooting.html

1 year ago

my opinion is, if we really want to reduce and avoid such acts of violence, then pursuing an avenue that has already been proven ineffective, even according to the DOJ who's own studies determined that more gun laws would have no beneficial effect on crime, would be knowingly wasting our time, money, and resources while failing to address and prevent such future acts from occurring again.

1 year ago

Christian,

dont you already have a thread set up for that stuff? perhaps I should start posting in it examples of some of the 2.5 million cases of self defence last year, but then last time i did that you got upset at me for disturbing your thread.

1 year ago

Christian, Allen says there is no such thing as an assault type weapon.  There are no such things as armor-piercing bullets.  That's news to me, as a special law has been passed here in FL to ban them.  I guess we must be banning imaginary things, right Allen?

Nancy, I do agree with everything you have said.  I also think we need gun control.  I know we cannot ban guns altogether and I never suggested that.  I am in favor of the regulations the president has called for.

1 year ago

Focus in on only one direction and speak of closed minds in the same breath.  Priceless...


I assume this was directed at me.  So, Suzanne, we have been going in one direction through massacre after massacre and now the majority of the country is asking for a direction change.  Are you saying you don't think there should be any gun regulation at all?  I don't get your comment.  For too long, we have followed the dictates of the NRA.  Now we want change.  What do you think?

1 year ago

Angelica, you still haven't shown me where I said what you relayed up above.  I guess you can't because I never did. 

Why should I answer anything you ask at this point?  You don't do me the same courtesy.  Rather you twist and turn and spin it to your thoughts on what someone says anyway.

Again here we go...

Did I ever state what I think about what President Obama has proposed?  Did I ever say there should be no regulation? 

You tell me what I think, you seem to think you know.

Also, that comment above about people just not caring is a whole shyteload of hype.  Do you really believe noone here cares because that is who you are talking to?



What my comment above meant and yes it was for you is all you do is make this an NRA matter when it is not solely that at all.  You will never get it because you don't even try to listen to what people are saying. 

Suzanne said this, Sarvo said this, Allen said that...

You read and take away from it something so different then what is said.  I don't know



This post was modified from its original form on 20 Jan, 12:55
1 year ago

Huh?  I never really understand what it is that makes you so upset.  You can drop negative comments with the best of them, but when anyone calls you on that, you get like this.  I don't get it.

I asked you what you meant.  You were talking about closed minds and direction changes.  I replied to that comment.  Now that makes you mad.  So, if I misunderstood you, what exactly did I misunderstand?  

And if you are calling the gun control advocates closed - minded, or calling me closed-minded because I support gun control, then what is your position? Evidently, you haven't stated your position, but you have gotten quite upset at me for not understanding what your position is.  Enlighten me.  



This post was modified from its original form on 20 Jan, 13:21
1 year ago

Call me out on what Angelica?  You completely make up shyte people say.  

Too funny

One thing I agree with that you just said is you don't get it.



This post was modified from its original form on 20 Jan, 13:23
1 year ago

Angelica, I will gladly disapprove any and all false misconceptions you can throw out at me, however you have no interest in truth or fact, you perceive things exactly how you wish despite all logic or rational behind it, in every case where there has been an assault weapons ban put  in place the politicians have had to create their own definition of what constitutes an assault weapon because there is no such definition that applys to civilian weapons, and in EVERY case it comes down to cosmetic features that have no impact on the functionality of the said weapon. You pretend that your support for such a ban is out of concern for safety, I say "pretend" because every study and all factual data available goes against your premise, the ONLY logical explanation for this can be that your desire for gun control outweighs your desire for a real solution to the problem of violence, for what other reason would you be calling for an action that has already been disproved as effective rather then looking for one that may actually be,

1 year ago

disprove, not disapprove (but that too) done on my iPhone.

1 year ago

This thread IS most certainly about our government, and also about the shooting in Sandy Hook, and all the other similar shootings, and the NRA, and mental health, and the sate of our country. 

All these topics are related, so yes, very definitely, all are in the mix.  Besides, limits on conversation usually are a tell-tale sign that someone dislikes certain points that are being brought up, or the direction the convo has gone in. 

Anyhow, assault weapons, like handguns, are already out there, in circulation.  To repeal them now, means the crooks will still have them, and we won't.  A lot of these truths are barbaric, yes.  But we live in a barbaric nation.  The world is coming undone.  Not just the U.S.   All of it.  It's unraveling.  The more they tighten their control, the more people lash out, the more hopeless situations become, the more "statements" are made with bullets and bombs.  The more people are allowed to wallow in self-pity and depend on substances fprescribed by uncaring doctors who are paid to promote barely tested drugs for very unscrupulous pharmaceutical companies, the more deranged and out-of-it people we're going to have running around.  Anything can be a weapon.  But it takes a "special" deranged and sociopathic mind to decide to use it as one. 

That's the root of the problem, even if guns had never been invented.  If we were all still playing with sligngshots and bows, the problem would be the same.  Humans.  And if you want to stop a weed from growing back, you go for the root.  This one being the state of the Human race.  These atrocities were usually mafia related in the past.  Now there's no reason behind them.  Now it's just tormented teen angst running wild.  Because they see no hope.  No way out, no way upward.  And honestly, they're not all wrong in that regard.  How they handle it, obviously, is wrong as wrong can be.  But the initial feelings that lead to it, those are there for years.  Perhaps our time would be better spent considering why. 

Our societies, as I said in the Coffe/Tea group, their structure hasn't changed much.  If you think of a nation, what is it made of?  People.  So, what causes the need for these people to set up governments?  A promise of stability, protection, organization, a sense of common purpose, among other things.  As I said, as Humans we have an innate desire to join communities.  TO be part of something larger than ourselves.  We are pack oriented creatures.  Territorial, yes, but loneliness is is one of the most undesirable emotions we feel.  That, and the feeling of being a victim.  Those are tough to deal with. 

So, with that, governments are formed.  Like the "stand up" guy in a group of ragged survivors, traversing a hostile landscape.  Think "Walking Dead", actually.  Perfect example.  We set up governments and hand over our tax money to them, because.....

1) they come across as "can-do" people.  They'll take care of the tough stuff, so we don't have to. 

2) they keep things organized, keep everyone together. 

3) they offer protection, they've got the fortitude to do so. 

4) their charisma, honestly.  Their confidence vibrates through us, filling us with confidence in them, and we raise them above ourselves. 

That's all well and good, if you have a protagonistic government.  A "Rick Grimes" in the Walking Dead. 

But if you've got an antagonistic gov't, like the governor guy from Season 3 Walking Dead, then everything is twisted to his advantage, while maintaining the illusion of those things above. Then you get:

1)  "can -do" becomes "only I can do, you can't."  It creates a dependency on the gov't, their word is Truth simply because they are the ones saying it, and they've convinced us that they are smarter than we are, more capable, better thinkers, ect. 

2)  They use propaganda to unite us when it suits them, rallying us towards causes that are often empty, like the wars currently in the Mid-East.  It's just an invasion.  No heroism involved.  Nothing against our troops, but against the guys sending them there and giving their orders?  Lots against 'em.  False flags everywhere.  They're not hard at all to create, you know.  People set each other up for a fall all the time.  When the gov't does it, it's just on a larger scale. 
And if it doesn't suit our gov't to unite us, they will divide us.  And what happens to those that are divided?  They are soon conquered. 

3)  Their protection soon becomes an excuse for more and more control over those they are protecting.  Even with good intentions, this can make life absolutely miserable.  Protecting becomes bullying then.  Might has unfortunately always made right here in this world.  If not for fear and threat of violence, people would scarce obey 90% of our laws.  Some control is obviously needed, but there is a point where it becomes abuse and harrassment. 

4)  Their charisma is then used effectively to help you look past all the wrong they do.  Like an abusive man, who manages to convince his beaten wife that he's actually a good guy deep down, and things will get better, and so on.  And the woman's self-esteem is so shot by then, she believes him, because she's given up.  SHe's become dependent on him, his opinions and his ways have been forcibly pressed into her very being so she can no longer tell up from down.  Happens all the time.  The gov't and it's subj

1 year ago


Angelica, your best bet is to ignore Suzanne, as she waffles so much on her positions, trying to come to an agreement on what she said is like trying to nail Jello to the wall.

Allen, as you can see, while you were arguing the semantics of what legally constitutes an assault weapon, five more people, including three children, just got killed by one. Oh, maybe it doesn't meet your legal definition of an "assault" weapon, but either way, the weapon in question was capable of slaughtering five people in a very short period of time.

Was it an assault weapon or just an assault-type weapon? Who freaking cares? Look what it did. The question isn't whether it is or isn't considered an assault weapon but why it is available for purchase by the general public in the first place.

While you natter on incessantly about irrelevant semantics, more people were murdered.
 
Hope you're happy.
 

1 year ago

ects are no different. 

And has no one noticed that we keep giving them our fare, and yet, they do next to nothing for us in return?  We're being shaken down for our lunch money by the bullies, and the teachers are looking the other way. 

1 year ago

Christian, I've been waiting for that.  Thanks for not disappointing me.

One persons waffle is anothers open mindedness or willingness to see things from all positions.  Something which you clearly do not do often.

True to form... 

1 year ago

Hope you're happy.


What a stupid ass statement.



This post was modified from its original form on 20 Jan, 15:00
1 year ago


Well, Allen doesn't seem to be broken up much about the latest gun slaughter, so ...


 

1 year ago

How would you even pretend to know what he feels or doesn't feel?   That really is silly.

1 year ago


Where's his outrage?

Or is he the strong, silent type?
 

1 year ago

Christian, you make more sense when you stick with your "against all guns" attitude, any gun has the potential of being used in an assault, you, like the media, will continue to ignore the fact that 2.5 million people have used a firearm in defending their life just in the past year alone, perhaps we can label those guns "defense weapons".

1 year ago


Seems to me like Allen is more butthurt about people insulting guns than he is about victims of gun violence, but maybe that's just me.
 



1 year ago


I question your stats, Allen.
 

1 year ago

Clinton's 1994 ban on assault weapons includes this definition:

That law, according to Mike Cooper on PolicyMic.com, defined an assault weapon as "anysemiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and at least two of the following five items: a folding or telescopic stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; abayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor); or a grenade launcher."

1 year ago


And even if that were true, Allen, why do 2.5 million people in the US have to resort to defending themselves with guns? What the hell kind of country is that?

 

1 year ago


The US sounds like Somalia.
 

1 year ago

Thank you Angelica for proving the obvious "cosmetics", just as I have been saying, I have 28yrs experience in the collecting, building, repairing, and shooting of firearms of every type,

your not going to throw a ringer at me that im not already aware of, I know guns.

1 year ago

Allen, assault weapons exist.  They are not a figment of my imagination.  It is interesting to me that your position is the NRA's position that, "Nope, they don't exist."  Perhaps the NRA has erected that wall because they know their position is indefensible.

Christian has raised some good questions.  I hope someone will answer them.

BTW, Allen, I never said all guns should be outlawed.  

1 year ago

Angelica,

I am well aware of what you and others consider to be assault weapons, what I am pointing out to you is that its merely a matter of cosmetics that have no effect whatsoever on the fuction of a firearm, it gives anti-gun politicians a feeling of accomplishment but thats it, I can remove all pistal grips, flash suppressors, put on a solid stock, do whatever is required by law, but at the end of the day my gun shoots bullets and operates exactly how it always has, its a "feel good" law, nothing more, so if the goal is to somehow make society safer, it fails.

And Christian is for a full-out ban on guns, we've been over this subject in the past, thats his opinion so there is no sense in pursuing an issue with him when there is no middle ground to be had, that and he's a really annoying jerk.



This post was modified from its original form on 20 Jan, 15:55
1 year ago



 

1 year ago

If you have a 30 clip or a 100 clip magazine, then you have what we call " an assault weapon." These weapons have no business being on the street.  Period.  End of story.



This post was modified from its original form on 20 Jan, 16:31
1 year ago

I can limit my magazines to 10, I can also pin my mags to a rifle to make them fixed, but then you assume you can enforce this same law on a criminal, but you cant, end of story, beginning of reality.

1 year ago


But most of these mass murderers don't become criminals until after they've mass murdered.

What about that?
 

1 year ago

Excellent point.  They won't agree.

Why do you need a 10 clip magazine, Allen?



This post was modified from its original form on 20 Jan, 17:10
1 year ago

What about we ban "assault weapons"? just like Clinton did for ten years, and just like with his ban all stats can report no decrease in crime, we can all go to bed with the warm fuzzies claiming victory, even though our victory failed to save any lives. We did the ban, it failed, so lets take a failed policy and repeat again. Or we can learn from our failed past and seek something that may actually have an impact on reducing violence, but its so much more fashionable to go after guns, regardless of its proven ineffectiveness. But I have faith that while many of you are fixated on guns, there are those out there who will seek real solutions.

1 year ago

Its not what I need, and its not your place to say what I dont.

1 year ago

And Angelica, for a more reasonable answer to your question, 10rnds is a standard magazine capacity for most guns, especially handguns, thats why NY went for a 7rnd max, because it was an underhanded attempt at banning most guns by simply making it impossible to comply with the new restrictions

1 year ago

What's wrong with a gun that fires one bullet a shot?  Why multiple shots?  That is to kill more than one person.  There's something wrong there. 

I favor the president's restrictions on gun purchases, beefing up of licensing requirements and background information, and reducing gun sales to those with criminal and mental health issues. I think these things could certainly help.  I do recognize that this will be a long, hard battle and that there are no easy solutions.  

1 year ago

Angelica, I dont remember the town or even the state (but a google im sure would easily find it), just recently on the news was reported a woman with kids who had an intruder enter her home and corner her and her children in a crawl space, she proceeded to shoot the intruder 5 times at close range, yet he still managed to exit the house and drive away, imagine if he had not left, or if there were more then one intruder, I can tell you from personal experience being an Afghan vet that very often a man doesn't just fall over dead after receiving a gunshot wound, nor does he  necessarily disengage, to limit the amount of ammunition a civilian may posses is to limit the amount of defense that person is capable of, and you can not assume that all things are equal in considering both the victim and attacker will both be armed within the limits of the law, restrictions can only go so far before the begin to seriously infringe on an indavidual ability to effectively defend themselves,

1 year ago

I honestly think that most of his actions will fail to pass, I do believe the universal background checks with improved mental health reporting however will because it has broad support (I think I heard something like 80%)



This post was modified from its original form on 20 Jan, 17:42
1 year ago

One thing I really want to see happen, I would like to see gun owners be held responsible for negligence in reasonably securing their firearms (failure to), I say this because as much as I support gun ownership, I also believe in personal responsibility and accountability, but then I feel this way in all aspects of life.



This post was modified from its original form on 20 Jan, 17:48



This post was modified from its original form on 20 Jan, 17:53
1 year ago


Too bad the morons who are against gun restrictions who also claim that they support a better mental health system are against providing a better mental health system.
 

1 year ago

Ive never claimed to be against improving on our mental health system,  you may have heard that from some, but not from me,

1 year ago

I like that last suggestion, Allen.  With all the kids that shoot themselves or a friend around here every summer when school is out, I would like to see a law pass about negligence

You also bring up a good point about the woman with the kids in the crawl space.  I assume the intruder was wounded when he sped off.  He then had to go to an emergency room, I would assume.  Yet, I do not know what the answer is in a case like this.  

1 year ago

Well, it is nice to know that there are areas of agreement, not a total solution but its a move in the right direction, nobody will get all they want out of this, but some things are better then nothing at all, hopefully while those in power are arguing the issue they can at least implement things that can be mutually agreed on.



This post was modified from its original form on 20 Jan, 18:25
1 year ago

just maybe. had the Sandy Hook shooter's mother secured her guns, its possible things may have turned out different.

1 year ago

That is absolutely true.  If Ms. Lanza had secured her guns...all those little kids and their teachers and principal - and Ms. Lanza herself -  would be alive today.  It is such a sickening tragedy because it did not have to happen.  

I was in a home last year where the family rifles were stacked up in a corner of the dining room and the mother had shot a hole into the floor.  She thought she heard dogs under the house and that really made her mad.  Scary people out there. 

1 year ago

This is the stuff that has to change.

1 year ago

Not just the mentally ill, also those convicted of gun and violent crime often serve little time in jail, I think its Florida that has the 10/20/life law, ten years for unlawful possesion, 20yrs for displaying, life for commiting a crime with a firearm, I think its that or something similar, repeat offences in certain cases shouldnt even be an option, period! make any firearm related crime a federal offense.  And the above post is scary being its in my home state.



This post was modified from its original form on 20 Jan, 19:04
Here it is
1 year ago

The law's name comes from three main mandatory sentences: 1) producing a firearm during the commission of certain felonies mandates at least a 10-year prison sentence; 2) firing one mandates at least a 20-year prison sentence; and 3) shooting someone mandates a minimum sentence of 25 years regardless of whether a victim is killed or simply injured. The maximum penalty is a life sentence unless the defendant is charged with felony murder or first degree murder in which case the maximum is the death penalty.[2][

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-20-Life

1 year ago

Thank you for that excellent information, Allen.  Clearly, we have to find even greater deterrents.

1 year ago

I remember that law from a poster in the Salvation Army probation office.  (Had me a DUI a few years back).  Makes sense.  I'm not against stricter laws either, and yeah, definitely some background checks. 

I don't know where it came about that someone would be for mental health reform, and then not, that's weird.  My stance on health care of any kind has been pretty clear over the years, I think.  Although, as much as I favor Universal Health Care; I will have to say, in the area of mental health, that should be left to private organizations.  However, I do also think that a huge shakedown of the pharmaceutical industry needs to happen, some very strict rules regarding the testing and distribution of over-the-counter medications need to be put in place as well.  As it stands now, they're selling things that appear to be more harmful than most illegal drugs, both physically and psychologically. 

But, that's not the only issue, either.  The state of our country, our education system, our fanatical laws about how children can or cannot be disciplined, and things like that need to change, too.  When I was a kid, and I mouthed off, my mouth got slapped.  If I kept mouthing off, my Dad would manage to whopp my rear end, without actually causing harm, but there was plenty of fear, respect, and humility involved.  My brothers and I grew up knowing how to conduct ourselves as adults, knowing how to respect authority, and yet, not so much to the extent that we would be blind if authority was being abusive.  I thank my parents for every ass-whooping they gave me to this day.  I don't fear them, I don't have issues with them, they're both very dear to me.  No issues.  I was raised, I was disciplined. 

And yet, in school, I was one of those who would be picked on, bullied, cast aside.  And my temper isn't the greatest, I can get pretty P.O.ed pretty quickly.  But never once, no matter how much I hated my classmates, (and still would, if I gave them any actual thought), I never once felt the urge to come in there and murder anyone.  That was unthinkable, that was never even the slightest of considerations.  Any antagonists I had, I just tried to avoid, and learned over time how to simply keep low-key, and escape notice.  Doesn't get you laid, though, I can tell you that much.   

Anyway, the point is, the over-protection thing has gotten out of hand.  We've been micro-managed into a stupor as a nation.  You can scarce take a dump without crossing some red-tape, these days.  We walk on egg-shells, 24-7.  And it isn't getting any better. 

1 year ago

One thing I know about Ms. Lanza, Ryan's mother, is that she couldn't get her son out of the house and in to residential treatment when he was a child and a teen - because there isn't anywhere for children and teens to go.  She was stuck with him and if he was violent at home, the health care industry and the law could do nothing to help her.  So, I think we need a good public mental health system that treats the poor as well as the wealthy, and offers good residential treatment as long as it is needed for an individual - not until the insurance runs out. 


Re: lying low and escaping notice

We have the Baker Act.  People who go on rampages at home will have the police called and they can be taken away and Baker Acted if they are out of control when the police arrive.  However, most mentally ill people learn to quiet down before the police arrive, which ties the police's hands.  The laws are very clear - one must be out of control and the police need to observe that.  



This post was modified from its original form on 21 Jan, 7:04
1 year ago

There do appear to be some significant irregularities, but to make that giant leap to a conspiracy by the Obama administration to take everyone's gun away is a bit much.


I agree. It's enlightening being objective isn't it?

You should try it more often. Not just when it is convenient for your ideology...

1 year ago

I want to be able to purchase 30 rnd magazines for assault rifles and 15+ round mags for my handguns.

I want this because that's what will we'll needed if we really have to excercise our 2nd amendment rights.

Anti-gun folks do not eally have a dog in this fight. It is very clear we have this right under the constitution. Either you accept that or you are saying we can circumvent the constitution. That means if you ever complain about free speech being dumped on then you are a hypocrite.

You can't have your cake and eat it to when it comes to the constitution...

1 year ago


Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to those things?
 

1 year ago

"As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]"
So there it is.  We have the right to bear arms.  We just don't have a right to medical treatment if we get blown away.
1 year ago

You can read it for yourself, it's in there. It has also been ruled on by the supreme court as well. I am sure you have your warped interpretation of this but it doesn't affect the reality of what the 2nd amendment provides the citizens of this country...

1 year ago

We have the right to bear arms. We just don't have a right to medical treatment if we get blown away.


You do if someone takes yo to the hospital or calls an ambulance for you. Just like our friend Fred, he went through some extensive tests and got treatment for some illnesses all by walking through the doors of a hospital and stating "I think i might be dying but I don't have any money."


Fred is now on his way to recovery...

1 year ago


The warped interpretation is yours. That was written during the time of one-shot muskets, shortly after the country had just finished up a war for independence from England. No one could ever have imagined automatic assault weapons with extended magazines, and they certainly would not have written in permission for Joe Blow American to get one wherever and whenever he liked.

Owning a handgun for protection is one thing. If you own anything else on top of that, especially an assault weapon, you have a mental disorder.
 

I am hesitant
1 year ago

 to even come back in to this, but feel I must in this one instance...

I was reading through this thread again and read where Angelica said the following to me



You also suggested that speaking out with the president could damage them emotionally.


I did not say that at all.  You really need to read what people say before accusing them otherwise.

1 year ago

Automatic weapons? again a display of ignorance as they are not available to the general public so not even in question.

And I guess using your logic the 1st shouldn't apply being we had no such thing as internet and television when it was written,

1 year ago


Oh, boo hoo. Semi-automatic, then. Big freaking difference. Tell that to the families of the 26 Sandy Hook Elementary victims. I'm sure they care deeply.

 

1 year ago


Your comparsion is ludicrous. Try again.
 

1 year ago

Suzanne, please.  I alreeady entertained the idea that I may have misinterpreted you.  But if I have, it is because you haven't clarified your position.  You have been critical of some of the positions here, which caused me to conclude what your position maight be.  Look, just say what you think (I will listen)  or stop complaining about it.  Please.

1 year ago

Only ludicrous to you because of your support for one but not the other, I however enjoy both without needing your support or approval.

1 year ago

Angelica, first I wish you could speak to people without being such a biotch sometimes.  I am not complaining, I am pointing out how badly you represented anything I said.

I'd like to know what I have been critical of exactly that has made you form your opinion.

I actually have been pretty much stating that the President, the NRA, the families, everybody has a right to speak their will.  I commented on my impressions from Shane's video.  So tell me what have you deemed from that.

I also have suggested that this issue has not just come about because of this instance.  And that the two main players are playing it as always before. 

I personally do not think that guns or ammo are the only problem here.  I think if you limit what free, good willed, law abiding people are allowed to do based on some bad actors.  This allows only the bad actors to have the freedom to do as they will.  I have never been one for punishing all for one.

I am not a gun owner.  I probably never will be.  I do not fear those who are decent to own an arsenal if they wish.  They are not the problem.

To be totally honest, I really don't have a stake in this personally not being a gun owner.  I have given gun owners the opportunity to explain their positions to me and I can accept what they say.

I have heard the anti gun people say what they will as well.  I can accept that also.

Both sides actually have some valid points.

If you think about the second amendment when written the governments and armies of the day did not have the weapons they do today either.



This post was modified from its original form on 21 Jan, 18:19
1 year ago

To me, it seems almost obvious if these ammo clips (?) did not fire as many rounds so readily,  that maybe it would prevent some deaths.   Almost...maybe not though.  The actors who do these horrible deeds are the problem.  They will gain access to whatever means they will to cause the carnage they do if that is what they desire.

1 year ago

Suzanne, some of the issues with magazine capacities is that with the enormous amount already in existence, only those who willingly comply with the law will be restricted, so being law-abiding I could very well find myself stuck with a magazine capacity of 10, 7, 5, whatever the current law provides for, defending against a criminal with a 30rnd magazine or multiple lower capacity magazines, keeping in mind the an attacker or intruder have the luxury of pre-planning and preparing in advance, which leaves the one acting in defense at a huge disadvantage, and then of course there is the reality of multiple attackers which is common in home intrusions, the law-abiding citizen is already at a disadvantage being they are acting defensively rather the offensively, which as I mentioned already gives the advantage of pre-planning to the attacker. Bottom line for me, no one can or should be able to determine how much ammo is sufficient in defending my life or the life of my family based on circumstances not possibly known in advanced,

1 year ago


Good lord.
 

1 year ago

I know... If only we had more laws in place, perhaps criminals would start to consider being more compliant, now doesn't that sound well reasoned?, apparently it does to some...

1 year ago

A couple  thoughts, my  responses  here were  pertaining to a  repugnant  patently  false  “theory” perpetrated  for  the  worst  of  reasons  at  the  expense of  slaughtered  children  and  grieving  families.

Personally  I  would  welcome  a  civil  discussion on  “gun control”  I’d  suggest  we  start a  new  thread  for that  topic,

Thoughts anyone?

Z



This post was modified from its original form on 21 Jan, 19:33
1 year ago


There is no rational discussion about guns with gun nuts. They are insane.
 



This post was modified from its original form on 21 Jan, 20:28
1 year ago

"

We have the right to bear arms. We just don't have a right to medical treatment if we get blown away.


You do if someone takes yo to the hospital or calls an ambulance for you. Just like our friend Fred, he went through some extensive tests and got treatment for some illnesses all by walking through the doors of a hospital and stating "I think i might be dying but I don't have any money."


Fred is now on his way to recovery..."

 

First of all, yes, I was extreme and expected this response from you.

 

Secondly, I am truly glad that your friend is recovering.

 

Thirdly, if my niece or her kids happened to be shot in the same manner as Gabbie Giffords, they'd probably be dead.  If alive, they would be severely disabled.  WHy?  there initial gunshot would be treated but there would be no folloow-up nor heroic surgeries and long term care such as Gabbie Giffords received (and I am glad she did). 



This post was modified from its original form on 22 Jan, 8:28
1 year ago

The warped interpretation is yours.


Not in the slightest. It is most everyones except the few fringe. Even the Supremes Court agrees. We need to have access to weapons that we would be able to defend ourselves with in case we ever do have to face another tyrannical government. Which is one of the main reasons we have the 2nd amendment.


 

1 year ago

"I personally do not think that guns or ammo are the only problem here.  I think if you limit what free, good willed, law abiding people are allowed to do based on some bad actors.  This allows only the bad actors to have the freedom to do as they will.  I have never been one for punishing all for one."  Suzanne

 

Reminds me of a story about Golda Meir.  AT one point during her politcal career in Palestine or Israel ( I don't know the date), there were many night time attaks on women.  This caused the men in power to call for curfews for women.  Her response":

 

“Once in cabinet we had to deal with the fact that there had been an outbreak of assaults on women at night.  One minister …suggested a curfew;  women should stay home after dark.  I said, “But it’s the men who are attacking the women.  If there’s to be a curfew, let the men stay at home, not the women…”  -  Israeli Prime Minister, Golda Meir

 

http://mysteryfactory.com/tag/golda-meir/

 

I had read about this in her biography.  But I think the point here is- why keep law abiding citizens who are doing no harm from doing what the Constitution say they can do. 



This post was modified from its original form on 22 Jan, 14:27
1 year ago

Who's Fred??? 


Nancy, exactly!  Thank you for the above post.  I love that...  Golda was quite a tough bird.

MIchael, I am always up for reasonable and respectful discussion.  However, did you notice the first response to you?  That is one reason, you will never get it.



This post was modified from its original form on 22 Jan, 15:24
1 year ago


Oh, now Suzanne is crapping in Michael? Seriously? Explain what was wrong with hs post.
 

1 year ago

I thought he was very nice. He invariably is in his posts to everybody.  

Suzanne
1 year ago

Suzanne,

I am  not  sure  what  you  are  referring  to,  could  you  elablotate?

Thanks,

Michael

1 year ago


She won't be able to.
 

1 year ago



Michael , I am surprised you need clarification.  I can understand Christian's stupidity and Angelica jumping on the bandwagon, but you?

Who was the first to post after you requested a civil discussion?  What was the comment?  I don't see how you can to talk to someone if that is how they feel.  Do you understand what I was saying now?

1 year ago

Christian and Angelica,

You started my day off smiling...



1 year ago

Madonne.

1 year ago

"That is one reason, you will never get it. "


Just for clarification because people seem to like to take what I say and twist it, turn it or completely make it up.  But the it in this sentence to Michael is referencing the actual reasonable discussion.  It does not mean Michael doesn't get it.


Angelica ???




This post was modified from its original form on 23 Jan, 5:18
1 year ago

Suzanne, I am outta here.  Be at peace - everybody.

1 year ago

1 year ago

I would welcome a civil discussion on “gun control” I’d suggest we start a new thread for that topic,


I think it is at a point right nnow where the debate is very simple.
Improve background checks and make some guidelines for people who are being treated for mental disorders. Some people will slip through but that is not a reason to disarm and entire nation.


Many people die everyday in this country and only a tiny fraction of those are because of firearms.


If you want to throw some statistics around on average, according to the CIA factbook, around 6,800 people die every day in the US, around 80 of those, according to the CDC, would be because of guns and that includes accidental shooting and suicide. Which is not "gun violence."


We have, estimated, 310 million firearms in the hands of citizens in this country. No one is going to take them all away. It is not realistic and it would be usurping our rights as law abiding citizens of this country if anyone tried.


That would be a despotic abuse of authority and that is why we were given the 2nd amendment, so we can fight it...



This post was modified from its original form on 23 Jan, 8:15
1 year ago

"Michael , I am surprised you need clarification.  I can understand Christian's stupidity and Angelica jumping on the bandwagon, but you?

Who was the first to post after you requested a civil discussion?  What was the comment?  I don't see how you can to talk to someone if that is how they feel.  Do you understand what I was saying now?"

Hi Suzanne,

I did not take your comment above to Michael in that way at all.  I understood the context.

But I am also not taking Michael's comment quite that way either.

Yes Michael- look at the comment immediately below yours.

Otherwise, I think you have a great idea and would welcome discussion.  Just have to not read some of the people's comments.

New day- same old cr*p.

1 year ago

"We have, estimated, 310 million firearms in the hands of citizens in this country. No one is going to take them all away. It is not realistic and it would be usurping our rights as law abiding citizens of this country if anyone tried."

Agreed.  And if we tried- the law abiding citizens would give them up and the criminals wouldn't.  Where is the sense in that?

1 year ago

And if we tried- the law abiding citizens would give them up and the criminals wouldn't.


I know a lot of law abiding citizens who would not. And they would be well within their rights, not only as a human excercising a natural right to defend ones self but also as a citizen of a contractual social agreement where that legal right was granted...



This post was modified from its original form on 23 Jan, 9:33
1 year ago

So now all those law abiding citizens who do not hand in certain weapons and ammo will become law breakers.  I would imagine they could be arrested for simply having something one day that someone else deemed they couldn't have any more.   A legal right determined by some who think differently taken away.  I wonder how they would feel if it were a right they cared about.  All of our rights in my opinion are important and should not be given up so freely.  They are afforded to all of us.  If one chooses not to exercise it.  That is their free choice.

I think much of this is a state by state decision on what works best for your own area.  I think it was Buck who indicated police response time in case of emergency in his area, being remote, is slow at best.   What to do if you find yourself in trouble, sit and watch the time tick by.

1 year ago

If (and I mean a BIG "if") there was nefarious intentions from our government they would want  citizens unarmed and at the mercy of their services. Dependency is slavery...

1 year ago

Buck- you are right.  I shouldn't have implied that ALL law abiding citizens would give them up.  But those who WOULD give them up would certainly not be those doing harm.

And Yes, those who didn't would becomec riminals. Even though it is their constituional right. 

The government hasn't asked for citizens to give up their arms (only an arm and a leg on tax day!).

1 year ago

This is where states need to make a stand. States have the 10th amendment and they need to excercise it. They should not be threatened, financially, by the Federal Government...

1 year ago

It's hard enough to debate the constitution in general. It's especially hard when it is the 2nd amendment and the intentions and the language is so clear...

1 year ago

I don't think the second amendment is clear at all.

'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia?  Oh really?  What the heck is THAT in this day and age.

Bear arms?  OK for a musket.  But an Uzi?

Not clear at all.  Soem type of firearm YES.  All firearms?

1 year ago

The musket argument is illogical. It's a sentence. It is easy to understand. "The right of people." The only thing I see is a lack of Militias and the weaponry to arm them sufficiently...

1 year ago

Buck is delusional.

1 year ago

And you are predictable...

1 year ago

Buck, I wasn't trying to make an argument based on a musket.  My concern is that the whole framing of this is based on milita which we don't have anymore.  Thus, I have no idea what it really means.  Did they mention hunting?  (which is one legitimate reason to have a gun, IMHO).

I truly DON"T know what it really means and as with anything in the Constitution, is thus open for interpretation by the courts.

And thus, a sincere legitimate discussion as Michael was calling for isn't a bad idea.  Of course, the whole issue has less to do with guns and more to do with our "nutsy" society.

On the other hand,  I do realize that you are not delusional and agree that Christian is predidctable most of the time. 

1 year ago

Hunting would be an inalienable right. To provide for your family. It means we have the right to form militias and we have the right to keep and bear arms. It is real easy. And, not that it needed to be, this statement and its meaning have been upheld by the Supreme Court...

1 year ago

I like what Buck was saying a few posts up, actually: 

I think it is at a point right nnow where the debate is very simple.
Improve background checks and make some guidelines for people who are being treated for mental disorders. Some people will slip through but that is not a reason to disarm and entire nation.



I agree.  If you're so emotionally.mentally handicapped that you can't face everyday life without sustenence from mind or mood-altering medications, then you probably shouldn't have a gun.  You probably shouldn't have toilet paper, either, but one thing at a time.   

Seriously, though, the bad eggs are gonna be dangerous, guns or not.  So why disarm the good eggs over it?  Can't throw the baby out with the bath-water.

And I'm sure someone's gonna argue that a lot of people need medication for "bi-polaris", "depression", and crap like that.  I'm "bi-polar" (those quote marks are there for a reason!), and I can most certainly get by without mind-altering crap of any kind.  Quite fine.  But the fact that so many rely on stuff like that, legal or otherwise, is testament to the quality of the world, or even jsut the nation, we live in.  All drugs are are a form of synthetic contentment.  Tricking your mind, literally, into making you feel better, even when you havent' got a reason for it.  When you feel like absolute crap, maybe there's a reason for it.  Maybe your life and its quality is a bit lacking.  Not saying it would be your fault, but the feeling's there, and there's your stimulous.  It all has a source, there's always a reason.  Taking the time to find it, and do something about it, that's how the problem goes away.  Drugs will ultimately make it worse, 90% of the time.  As a nation, we need to ween ourselves out of that stupidity.  Big Pharma's laughing all the way to the bank.  No different than your local crack dealer, except much wealthier, and protected by the law, rather than hindered by it. 




This post was modified from its original form on 23 Jan, 14:41
1 year ago

I'm thinking if  you are on any mood altering medication for an indefinite period of time.  You probably should not be able to own weapons.

I also think extensive background checks should be mandatory.


They need to create a database that can be updated as to gun owners status, whether criminal, abusive or mental changes.  Maybe every 5 years require proof of mental health, or something of that nature.

I mean once you get the weapon you don't have to keep showing you are sane right?  Maybe a mental health check up.   People change.

Just a not so thought out thought ...

1 year ago

o why disarm the good eggs over it? 


Well, we are becoming a nanny nation. Trying to legislate stupidity out of the human race will never work.

You cannot save all of the people. That is not natural, we have a finite existence. We must go through the process so others can have their experience on this planet in the future. We can only support so many people on this planet.

Some people have this warped reality that a utopia is possible. I am sorry to be the bearer of reality but the human condition will not allow that to happen. And even if you managed to force everyone into this it would be creepy and unnatural...

1 year ago

I'm not feeling the love from that post at all Buck   I feel very disillusioned and empty right  now.

1 year ago

I just had a conversation recently about the nanny state situation.   Personally, I find it insulting.  I am an adult and make my own decisions and base that on the experience of my life.  No one knows it better than me and I don't need government protecting me at every turn. 


I also get that whole utopian thing.  Unfortunately not everyone is going to get along.  Creepy and unnatural indeed.

1 year ago

Well, there is a fakey fake huggy huggy koombayah version of this world and then there is reality.

Children in Africa having there hands chopped off, sent to kill their own village, made to be slaves for our superficial needs. Adulterers and homosexuals are stoned to death in public etc...

It's not a fairytale out there it can be a jacked up world because some humans are just evil mutherfuccers...

1 year ago

Point being, you can't legislate the evil out of people...

1 year ago

Definitely sick individuals roam amongst us.  Many of those things you have mentioned above are sanctioned by their governments or leaders.  Sick indeed.

I just find that every time the government tries to protect me from something.  The only thing it achieves is costing me more money and not doing a damn thing on their end to achieve what it was they are protecting me from.

1 year ago

So Buck's solution is to dump 300 million guns amongst the evil people.

Christian..
1 year ago

"Owning a handgun for protection is one thing. If you own anything else on top of that, especially an assault weapon, you have a mental disorder."

That really is so offensive..Not to mention so untrue..

You or anyone certainly are entitled to have your own opinion..but to make such a statement is really sad..

1 year ago

"I think it is at a point right nnow where the debate is very simple.
Improve background checks and make some guidelines for people who are being treated for mental disorders. Some people will slip through but that is not a reason to disarm and entire nation."


I really agree there..

1 year ago

So Buck's solution is to dump 300 million guns amongst the evil people.


I never said that.


That really is so offensive..Not to mention so untrue..


If I owned an assault rifle, which I do not, christian stating I have a mental disorder would not phase me in the slightest. You have been around here long enough to see he has his own mental disorders.

I do not need an assault rifle. I have a rifle that holds five rounds that I am accurate with at around 500-700 yrds. For anything closer to that I have a handgun and a shotgun. And if something really did go down it would not take me long to get my hands on a assault rifle...



This post was modified from its original form on 24 Jan, 12:15
1 year ago

"Well, there is a fakey fake huggy huggy koombayah version of this world and then there is reality."

Yes, and a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down!

1 year ago

 I do own an AR, its not my most accurate and far from the most powerful (.223 is a very small cartridge), my attraction to it is its versatility, easy (complete) take-down for maintenance and cleaning, its simplicity that allows for the average owner to complete most repairs themselves, affordable ammo for range use, and I just plain enjoy shooting it. And I still strongly object to the term "assault rifle" as assault rifles are military issued fully automatic weapons not available to the general public whereas the AR15 is the common platform semi-auto rifle. For home defense my weapon of choice is a shotgun as it is by far among the most effective and lethal close-range weapon. By the loose standards many use to classify "assault weapons", ANY rifle I own could easily be transformed between acceptable "hunting rifles" and evil "assault weapons" by making simple cosmetic changes that will have no effect the function of the weapon.

In Addition to what Buck had stated earlier, I would include making any crime committed with a firearm as a Federal offense allowing for more strict prosecution and punishment.



This post was modified from its original form on 24 Jan, 13:59
1 year ago


My statement isn't sad. For what reason could anyone possibly want to own an assault rifle other than to kill a whole bunch of people at once? That's its only purpose.
 



This post was modified from its original form on 24 Jan, 15:04
1 year ago

There's a flip to that question:  Why would gov't officials (who don't do anything much to benefit us, due to lack of interest) make so much fuss about gun control?  What do THEY gain from it?  Hmmmm...? 

They are dishonest, and dishonest people you can always trust to be dishonest. 

1 year ago


Government officials are elected by the people to take care of things like these. It is the people who gain.
 

1 year ago

I used to own a water pistol.  Does that count? 

1 year ago

Nancy, Only if its restricted to 16oz of water capabilities.

1 year ago

Elected by us they may be, but, then what?  Once elected, they generally seem to do their own thing.  It scarce benefits us.  The people will gain when corporate interests and gov't no longer coincide, and when elections are actually decided by the popular vote, rather than the electorate. 

1 year ago

Hey Allen- India Ink works well.  Hopefully there isn't a law against that. 

1 year ago


Yes, once elected, they get bought and paid for by interests and pretty much start working for those interests, but in the case of these all-too-frequent mass shootings, most of society starts asking the people they elected to do something about it. There's no damn "government agenda" here. This is a near-unanimous decision by sane people to try to put an end to mass shootings by asking their elected representitives to do something about it. Only sick, selfish gun nuts with mental disorders oppose efforts to stop mass shootings.
 

1 year ago

"If I owned an assault rifle, which I do not, christian stating I have a mental disorder would not phase me in the slightest. You have been around here long enough to see he has his own mental disorders."

Actually Buck..I have not been around here enough to see much of anything..In Care2 yes..Political groups no..

But I do find your statement just as sad as Christian's was..

I guess I just don't get why one needs to resort to being so disrecpectful to one another..

1 year ago

"My statement isn't sad. For what reason could anyone possibly want to own an assault rifle other than to kill a whole bunch of people at once? That's its only purpose."

That may be the only purpose you can think of Christian..But it certainly does not mean that anyone who has one has mental disorders..

And yes it is very sad that you need to be so disrespectful..
 

1 year ago

For what reason could anyone possibly want to own an assault rifle other than to kill a whole bunch of people at once?


They are fun as hell to shoot. It is what you need if you ever have to take a stand against another tyrannical government. But more importantly, it doesn't matter the reason, we have the right to own and use these weapons.


Actually Buck..I have not been around here enough to see much of anything..In Care2 yes..Political groups no..
But I do find your statement just as sad as Christian's was..
I guess I just don't get why one needs to resort to being so disrecpectful to one another..


So you are chastising me for this?

Go back through this post and figure out who is the biggest instigator around here. Go look through other threads as well and then come back and lecture me on respect.

You should hang out more, you will start seeing the light...

1 year ago

Gun deaths are minscule compared to so many other vectors of death.

This is political posturing. What people will find out is if they come in and throw down restrictive legislation they will lose support even from non gun owners. It will happen because they will react to a government usurping the rights of the citizens of this nation.

It starts here but where does it end? We are already being taxed to death because our leadership cannot control it's waste of our money. How much more control are willing to put up with?

The federal government has way overstepped it's boundaries. I say it's time for states to step up to the plate and  take some power and dignity back. How pathetic is our situation where states are slaves to the federal government because they threaten to take away funding?

It's gross and our founding fathers would be sick to their stomachs today if they witnessed this...

Buck..
1 year ago

It doesn't matter who started..or who does the most..it is my opinion that its all just rude..and doesn't really leave much room for an good conversation..

It doesn't take much hanging out to see the light..that is if seeing the light really shows the worst of people..Which is really not my cup of tea..

I love a good discussion..don't like rude name calling..Regardless of how intelligent one may be..it makes them look really childish.. ignorant..and just plain dumb..

Just how I feel about it..Which is why I don't hang out much in these groups..but do like to pop in on certain topics from time to time..That is until they get all trashed..

 

This topic on some idiotic hoax as well as the frantic emotional call for gun control following another most tragic shooting caught my attention..

Both are ridiculous..

 

1 year ago

Dee, of course you are right but years of the same old same old, from the same old same old, just brings out something you normally are not.  You can only take so much rude before you give it back.  It becomes the norm between the involved parties.

Not good for conversation at all.  I don't think though that at the beginning of it all, in some cases, that conversation was ever desired in the first place.  It was always about the cheap jabs and cut downs.


You give what you get or else you become a door mat.  It is a sad reality, but it is what it is, especially in politics.



This post was modified from its original form on 25 Jan, 9:55
1 year ago

Basically what I was saying was I don;t really care what you think. You interjected yourself into this so that tells me you are interested in it.


You are now calling other people idiotic and ridiculous. You just came in here and pretty much called people "rude, childish, ignorant, and dumb."

What gives you the right to come in here and judge everyone while trying to admonish others for what you say is being "disrespectful? If you didn't like it you were welcome to simply stay out of it. But no, you wanted to join the fray. And now that you have, you are just as childish as the rest of us.

You are taking part in the trashing of this discussion. In fact, your initial posts were simply talking trash.

So get off your high horse and stop trying to lecture people...



This post was modified from its original form on 25 Jan, 9:56
1 year ago

Excuse me....I am not childish like the rest of you!!!!!

1 year ago

Nothing irks me more than the drama loving, self righteous, narcissists around here...

1 year ago

1 year ago

What people will find out is if they come in and throw down restrictive legislation they will lose support even from non gun owners. It will happen because they will react to a government usurping the rights of the citizens of this nation.




I think the above is true.  I know I really don't care about guns one way or the other to be honest.  I don't walk around my days thinking about them or fearing them.

I do fear the government telling us what to buy, what we can do, what we can't do,how many we can have and how much we should pay for it whether it benefits us or not.  On and on... 

Of course reasonable legislation is one thing.  We do need law and order, but...


Get off my ass already.....




This post was modified from its original form on 25 Jan, 10:15
1 year ago

hmm


Not you...

1 year ago

Suzanne..lol..Not that you or anyone ever needs my approval..But you are fine just as you are..I have never seen you get all trashy and spew garbage at anyone..

Buck..get over yourself..seriously..there was no drama..no trash talk..no self righteousness..It was just my opinion..and last I knew there was freedom of speech aside from your own..

And as far as being a narcissist..there is no "McCool" at the end of my name..


1 year ago

You...telling me...to get over myself!? That's a laugh after your self righteous lecturing on this thread.

But I see you like to resort to the same activity you admonished us for earlier. Your are just going to dig yourself into a deeper hole if you keep posting.

What's in a name? The last name is homage to, probably, my favorite book.

Finn Mac Cool by Morgan Llywelyn...

1 year ago




That's you told.
 

1 year ago


Anyway, seriously, there is no possible reason to want to own an assault rifle other than to fulfill a personal fantasy of blowing away tens or hundreds of people. That is its only purpose.
 

1 year ago

Buck, I always wondered if that was your real last name or not   Some how I didn't think it was


My grandfathers name was Finn, Not Finius (sp), just Finn.

Hi Dee, thank you!


Christian, I don't think that is true at all.  Being a gun owner, does not mean you want to kill anyone, let alone commit mass murder. 



This post was modified from its original form on 25 Jan, 11:01
1 year ago


Really? Then what other reason could one have for owning an assault rifle?
 

1 year ago

Why does anyone want the latest and greatest of anything?

Honestly, I just think it is not looking at the reality of who owns many of these weapons.

You like photography...

They like guns...

Hey, they both involve shooting ...

1 year ago


Firing ranges don't really count because they only serve as a temporary substitute for the real-life scenario in which the assault rifle owner gets to actually shoot a large group of people.
 

1 year ago


Ah, yes. Nikon D800 ... Bushmaster AR-15 ... same thing.
 

1 year ago

Gets to shoot a large group of people.  You know I dont even believe you believe that.


I figured you would like the later part of the post

Makes you wonder, you both like to shoot a target. 

1 year ago


I'm-a load up on some SanDisk 32MB Extreme III compact flash memory cards, go down to the mall and show 'em who's boss.



 

1 year ago

Have fun with that. 

1 year ago


Maybe I can get some shots of Buck hunkered down in his underground bunker waiting to blow away the feds when they come to take his guns, yee-haw.



 

1 year ago

I knew it...(about the mall) 



1 year ago



The feds are-a comin'!  I'se gwine git mah gun.


cletus.JPG

1 year ago

OMG!  I had never seen a cartoon character before that looked so much like you Christian.  Great find.

1 year ago

Only after he kills tons of people for fun..

1 year ago



Didn't want you to feel left out Nancy.  By the way great observational skills

1 year ago


nugent-war.png

1 year ago


Well, later kids. Ironically, I'm off to shoot some stuff. With my Nikon D800.
 



This post was modified from its original form on 25 Jan, 11:38
1 year ago

  That's actually funny...


I am so thankful you didn't post that nasty half naked gross guy again...

1 year ago

Maybe I can get some shots of Buck hunkered down in his underground bunker waiting to blow away the feds when they come to take his guns, yee-haw.


They will never find it..!

1 year ago

Don't get crazy out there...

1 year ago

They will never find it..!


1 year ago

Wants to go to war with Obama:No, you don't. You really don't.


Kind of funny but Obama could never use our military against us because It is full of a bunch of guys like me.


And that is a CH53 heavy lift helicopter used for transport. It is not a gunship. So it is not that scary when it is coming at you...

1 year ago

Try using a wide angled lens as not to have such a narrow view on things

I wouldn't count on the military to violate their oath to defend the constitution
1 year ago

1 year ago

Oorah...

1 year ago

I'm off to shoot some stuff. With my Nikon D800.


I heard they were going to limit the amount of memory you can put in your camera to 256mb...

1 year ago

1 year ago


Allen, that's the only funny thing you've ever written on Care2, and quite possibly, the only funny thing you've ever said in your entire life. Well done.

Buck, keep trying. Someday it might happen for you.

 

1 year ago

Buck, keep trying. Someday it might happen for you.


I know it it bothers you to know the reality that I am just a politically moderate and chill guy with a good sense of humor. It riuns that image you try to create of me shivering in the my bunker while clutching my guns and bible in fear of the gays, hispanics and terrorists coming to get me...

1 year ago


I always imagined your bunker to be heated and fully stocked with K-rations, but whatever.
 

1 year ago

I always imagined your bunker to be heated and fully stocked with K-rations, but whatever.



K rations? LOL!

I don't see Johnny Mercer or Bing Crosby on the top 10 hit list...

1 year ago

I was thinking more in the lines of fire pit and bar-b-que...



This post was modified from its original form on 25 Jan, 15:54
1 year ago

Are we aiming for another 1,000 post thread?  Like Michelle and her fancy pants?

1 year ago

Nancy, I swear to you, I was thinking the same thing

1 year ago


government.jpg

1 year ago

I'm post number 250?!  Awesome!  I started a fire, I guess.   Yeesh. 

I remember a thread about Michelle's pants....I never clicked on it, the title never appealed, I guess.  Can't imagine how that got so many people going, lol.  Her pants are the least of concerns, I would think. 

I would think, in the event of an us vs. them scenario, the military would be divided.  Some would keep to their oaths, but I feel it more likely a lot would be convinced that they're actually doing the right thing, because the gov't is masterful at making bad things look like godsends.  They introduce a plague, or pretend there is one when there isn't (take your pick), then they demand everyone be innocculated against this.  Problem is, the people given this, actually are then GIVEN a disease, and drop dead, and from there it's hysteria.  Then armed forces, thinking they're protecting us, force us to take vaccines that are killing us.  Not even knowing any better. 

That's an example, not exactly what I think is in store, but it's the sort of tactics they'd employ. 



This post was modified from its original form on 26 Jan, 14:26
1 year ago


Most US military people are right-wing (Buck and Allen being perfect examples), so they would most likely take the wrong side, i.e. against the people.
 

1 year ago

Not just military, there is a growing number of Sheriffs and law-enforcement agency's who openly state they would refuse to enforce such actions as they believe them to be unconstitutional, even here in my blue state of Minnesota. It says something that even Leftist AL Frankin is steering clear of further gun-control actions in our state.






This post was modified from its original form on 26 Jan, 16:30
1 year ago


"Leftist"?

1 year ago


I thought Al Franken was a Democrat.

1 year ago

Great cartoon, Christian.  Sorry I can't give you another green star.

1 year ago


That cartoon describes Buck and Allen to a T.

This thread really is long now. Let's go for the gold! Beat the Fancy Pants thread! How many posts did we have on that, anyway? Was it over 1000?
 

1 year ago

"Her pants are the least of concerns, I would think.  "

Yeah, because we now have her new haircut with bangs to discuss instead.

(or what about Beyoncegate?)

I'll contribute to post count
1 year ago

1 year ago
Sending a Green Star is a simple way to say "Thank you"

You cannot currently send a star to Allen because you have done so within the last week.

(I believe that this is only 280, we have a ways to go)

1 year ago

Naturally, Allen's cartoon has no basis in reality, but it does increase the post count, so that's good.

1 year ago

If you read DF's new definition of an "assault weapon", it in fact does.  .

1 year ago

Heck yeah!  Rainbowz & Unicornz!!!!

And don't forget Buck's favorite song
1 year ago

KumBaYahSnippet.jpg

1 year ago

............................................................sd

1 year ago


This is post #265. We've got a long way to go, people.
 



This post was modified from its original form on 28 Jan, 11:21
1 year ago


This thread is long enough that it barely loads on my phone anymore, so that's pretty good.
 

1 year ago

So does that mean that you won't be replying to long threads anymore? 

1 year ago


Probably not from my phone.
 

1 year ago

269

1 year ago

270

1 year ago

271 (courtesy of bad Cakes)

The Second Amendment
1 year ago

Some  Americans exercising their second Amendment rights…….

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/gun-fails-second-amendment-rights-gone-wrong_n_2490579.html

1 year ago

Hey- maybe we need a petition to care2 to have a "Gun Appreciation Day" ecard next year. 

Yee-haw!
1 year ago


credible_hulk.jpg

1 year ago




275!

1 year ago

276

There just aren't enough puppies in this thread!

1 year ago

277

 There.  That should do it!

1 year ago

278 There is also not enough chocolate.  

1 year ago

279



This post was modified from its original form on 29 Jan, 14:55
1 year ago

...............mmmHmmmm.....yep, chocolate....

1 year ago

  Well, then, here is some more.

1 year ago

1 year ago

1 year ago

1 year ago

I have lost count, but here is some more chocolate for Shane.

1 year ago

And this, for no particular reason at all.

1 year ago

1 year ago

1 year ago

Hunting with Cheney - now that's bad karma.

1 year ago


Allen, of course, implying that President Obama should be shot. 

As long as it counts towards the post count, though, it's all good.
 

1 year ago



Teabagger barbecue, perfect for Buck:


teabagger-barbecue.jpg

 

1 year ago

It wasn't actually the chocolate we needed more of....lol

s

Implying what? Your mind must be a dark scary place
1 year ago

Perhaps you can better appreciate this one without coming to some outrageous conclusion.

1 year ago


The minds of gun owners are the dark and scary places.

1 year ago

Allen, I have seen Dick Cheney cartoons relating to hunting that go back before President Obama.  It is more a slam against Cheney and his hunting abilities than about killing anyone.  He never has killed anyone while hunting.


I was reading yestersay where some republican woman, don't remember her name, challenged President Obama to a skeet shooting competition because President Obama says he skeet shoots at Camp David.  I do not have an issue with either doing so.

Just sayin....


I laughed at the gun bar-b-que.  I bet Buck would love that!!!  Totally  unique...

Assault Weapon Fancy Pants
1 year ago

army pants big.jpg

1 year ago

I was envisioning some hot dogs and kielbasas (or hot italian sausage or brats) shooting out of the grill. 

Chocolate fancy pants
1 year ago

MinkyPantsChocolateCherry.jpg

For Shane?
1 year ago

candyshop 127.jpg

And for Christian to pu on his grill
1 year ago

120398828_2a203d5b00_z.jpg

(this one is almost a little gross for me)

1 year ago

And for Christian to pu on his grill



Nancy, I know it's a missing letter thing but that cracked me up.


and...

What is that???

1 year ago

I know Suzanne, that was just Christians sick take on the comic, but then by his standards Obama's mind must be a dark scary place being that he skeet shoots, which requires a gun of course. It really is a fun sport to take part in, I love it.

Busy day today
1 year ago



3 people shot at Phoenix office building
Suspected shooter left building after firing shots, police say
The Associated Press Posted: Jan 30, 2013 2:06 PM ET Last Updated: Jan 30, 2013 2:49 PM ET
 

Three people at a Phoenix, Ariz., office complex were shot Wednesday morning, and the shooter's whereabouts are unknown, local police say.
 

Officer James Holmes said the victims were taken to hospitals. He did not know if their injuries were life-threatening.
 

Holmes said police believe there was only one shooter, but they don't know his whereabouts.
 

"We have no motive," Holmes said. "It is right now a really fluid scene."
 

He said police were given conflicting information about the suspect leaving the scene. The building was evacuated and police are looking for a suspect or any additional victims.
 

Vannessa Brogan, who works in sales support in an insurance business in the three-storey complex, said she heard a loud bang that she thought at first was from somebody working in or near the building.
 

She said others at the business thought they heard multiple loud noises. She said people locked themselves in offices until authorities evacuated the central Phoenix building that houses insurance, medical and law offices.
 

Becky Neher, who works for a title company in the building said the two gunshots she heard sounded like two pieces of metal banging against each other.
 

"We were doing our regular morning routine, and I hear what I guess were two gunshots," she said.
 

Watching from her second-storey office, she saw people below leaving the building.
 

"Someone yelled, 'We have a shooter,'" she said. She saw two victims lying on the ground outside the back of the building. She said there are medical people who have offices in the complex, so they came out to help.
 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/01/30/phoenix-office-complex-shooting.html
 



This post was modified from its original form on 30 Jan, 12:01
1 year ago

Allen, like your new avi.


I haven't done it in years.  I did hit the target though.


Not all gun activities are deadly...

1 year ago

@Suzanne

1.  Was that a Freudian slip on my part?

2.  meat pants

A shared technique?
1 year ago

1 year ago

Thanks Suzanne, as you can see, when in uniform I prefer holding a cup of coffee over a weapon.

1 year ago

I am not seeing Allen's new avi.  I feel left out.

1 year ago

Nancy - those pants!!!!!!   

I predict that chocolate covered bacon will become extremely popular.

http://www.yumsugar.com/Homemade-Chocolate-Covered-Bacon-1813878

Shane - I guess I knew it wasn't the chocolate alone that you liked.  So, here is another chocolate covered maiden for you.  Enjoy!

1 year ago

Then there's always this: