Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Assault Weapons – the very name is indicative of intent!
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 27, 2012 at 3:55 pm #764746
DBPMemberI’ve got to hand it to ya, kootch.
No really, dude. I like your moxie!
It takes guts to come on here, day after day, and defend the World’s Most Unpopular Position.
But beyond that, I owe you a personal debt of gratitude. See, if it weren’t for you, everyone on here would think I was the lunatic.
“Who is this DBP nut,” they’d say “—raving about black helicopters and death squads and such?”
“Haw-haw! Somebody get this guy’s meds refilled. Stat!”
But then, just when I’m on the verge of despair, sure that my posts are going to get flagged for being “too psychotic,” the Cavalry comes thundering over the hill . . .
Â
Â
The SWAT teams are coming! The SWAT teams are coming!
          Everyone lock and load!
Â
Â
Â
Â
(Thanks for not leaving me twisting there, buddy.)
July 27, 2012 at 4:47 pm #764747
JVMemberNow, in today’s news, here is a story about a guy carrying a gun who stopped an attempted murder rampage.
This is what kootch and I have been arguing all week. We need MORE guns…yes more guns, in the hands of responsible citizens. (I’d almost guarantee the guy who saved lives, is a Tea Partier!). I don’t want to jump to conclusions on the other guy (like ABC news did) but he was yelling, “you killed my people!” during his stabbing spree. Class warfare rhetoric…coming hoooome…to roost. (Rev’n Wright shout out)
July 27, 2012 at 5:02 pm #764748
miwsParticipantAnd, now, in other news…..
Mike
July 27, 2012 at 5:12 pm #764749
JVMemberInteresting that a criminal with a gun is called a “gunman” but a criminal with a knife isn’t called a “knife man” or something.
Also in comparing these 2 stories, the shooter grazed two officers, whereas the knife man put 2 people in serious condition, stabbing them in the head and stomach.
My only point is that knives or anything can be dangerous in the hands of crazy people.
July 27, 2012 at 5:21 pm #764750
miwsParticipantOh, yeah.
Or a guy that uses a car with criminal intent could be called a carman!
Depending on his vehicle of choice, there could be a redundancy issue….
Mike
July 27, 2012 at 5:25 pm #764751
miwsParticipantBut the gunman did kill an officer.
K-9’s are commonly recognized as bonafide police officers.
Annnnnnnd the gunman could have very easily killed one or both human officers as well.
And innocents.
Mike
July 27, 2012 at 5:47 pm #764752
JVMemberAgree on the dog point. I hope the guy’s sentence is as strong as had he killed a human officer.
And I am especially terrified of the idea of a Karmann Carman! =) I don’t want to be taken out by a balding guy with a pony tail!
July 27, 2012 at 6:28 pm #764753
DBPMemberHold it a minute, folks! Don’t touch that dial!
Police scanners have been going crazy over there in Ritzville, east of the mountains. Looks like we’ve got some heavily armed local guy fending off a UN attack on his property, just north of town . . .
Â
Looks like Mr. Smartypants DBP is gonna have to eat his words again, huh?
Â
July 27, 2012 at 6:48 pm #764754
DBPMemberOh no!
Wait a minute! Wait a minute!
(How’s that again? What did you say? Black raptors?)
Â
Â
      Â
Â
Omigosh. Heh-heh.
Well, sorry folks. My bad.
It wasn’t “black copters” after all.
Â
Â
****************************************************************************************
CITIZENS OF RITZVILLE, CEASE FIRING IMMEDIATELY!
DO NOT BE ALARMED! GET BACK IN YOUR HOMES!
REPEAT:
CITIZENS OF RITSVILLE!
CEASE FIRING IMMEDIATELY!
July 27, 2012 at 9:32 pm #764755
kootchmanMemberThe most dangerous gun owners are cops. Those are statistical facts. See redblack and TanDL… the “why” of it was asked.. and I say look to your cultural set. wannabe Commando cops armed to the teeth … with not one or two screw ups.. many of them. Then you question why the culture set emulates violence and assault weapons? We promote it at the government level and they decry the more responsible private gun owner. Beat cops acting and dressing like they were SOCOM trained special forces… in our streets? DPB…. cute puppy pictures to come?
July 28, 2012 at 12:07 am #764756
miwsParticipantDPB…. cute puppy pictures to come?
If DPB doesn’t mind, please allow me…….
(Well, I guess it’s too late. Hope DPB doesn’t mind.)
Mike
July 28, 2012 at 2:33 am #764757
TanDLParticipantAwww… that’s cute!
July 28, 2012 at 4:29 am #764758
megMemberHi dobro@113,
We already HAVE limitations on Amend 2. No automatics sold xcept for a really narrow population segment with a special license (can’t remember what that is right now). We have requirements like bkgrnds, regs, conceal laws, required locks, and more (all stuff that Amd 2 didn’t include)
Your free speech example is weak. The govt. hasn’t banned the word fire from everyone’s vocabulary permanently. I can still say fire almost everywhere. I’d actually be happy with firearm limitation similar to limiting a word in certain contexts – not removing certain words from the English vocab. entirely.
Real problem as I see isn’t with lack of limitations to gun ownership. It’s Weak Enforcement of the laws and of limitations that we already have. So, before panicking and adding even more firearms limits, I’d suggest the public ask for stricter enforcement for existing laws. Be brutal on all violators of backgrounds, registrations, conceals, etc. And those who kill civilians. Right now, we’ve got a schism. First time violators who kill a cop – well, that’s the end of their life, they’re toast. Kill a civilian, and… meh. So, maximum penalties for all violations. That would be nice.
About your points on mental health issues, I quickly say yes, a large % of americans are not well upstairs. However, the Holmes guy was apparently average dude and not under mental observation. Unless he had a brain tumor or sumthin, I don’t think we can assume leaning on the healthcare system more, or feeding it more $$, or suing it, would be effective. It will be interesting to hear what, if any, mental issues he had.
I think alienation is a bigger problem. Our detached impersonal society (that we all participate in to make it this way) sets up this dangerous alienation thru use of bizarre synthetic manipulated processes marketed as the real thing for personal identification and belonging. Everyone needs a safe place and real human love. Sappy, huh? But I think not. We are The Truman Show, and for anyone who slowly begins to wake up to realization of the ‘poser’ shit they live in the midst of…if it’s all poser, then what? A rage against the world, or addiction or suicide or abuse? A mental illness perhaps, but then again not really. We have to wake up and create sumthin real, but not by asking govt. for another reality show. Our Govt. is one big contributor to this alienation.
As far as your @114 goes, I think I can use target posts to judge your critiques since that provided needed context. Honestly, to me your critiques were opaque or cryptic – except for the snarky bits. Had to read them a few Xs and then try get context from targets so I could respond (especially since you said you didn’t expect me to understand… Lawdsy snark like that brings out the competitve shit in me! LOL.)
Finally to the correctness of your critiques … Personally, I can do different styles, but truly I do not have a problem with participating heated strong debates or even polarized ones. I’m only disgusted if they get really personal or threaten physical violence. If someone needs to walk away or gets turned off, that’s fine. They can come and go, if they want. Me too. I don’t think posts should be toned down, de-binaried, edited away, or styled in a particular fashion for the purpose of convincing certain folks to stick around. There’s good seeds in many types of communication. We have diverse styles. We need less conformity in this world.
July 28, 2012 at 6:27 am #764759
dobroParticipant“We already HAVE limitations on Amend 2.”
Yes, I know that. I suggested some we don’t have that I think we should have in a subsequent paragraph.I’m giving you my opinion. You know, what you asked me for?
“Your free speech example is weak. The govt. hasn’t banned the word fire from everyone’s vocabulary permanently.”
Try reading the rest of the sentence, the part about “in a crowded theater.” That example is probably THE most cited example of limitations on the Bill of Rights so it certainly isn’t “weak”. One of the things that makes having an intelligent discussion on a forum sometimes difficult is people picking things out of context to suit their replies. Read the whole damn sentence, please.
“Real problem as I see isn’t with lack of limitations to gun ownership. It’s Weak Enforcement of the laws and of limitations that we already have.”
I would agree this is a problem, not necessarily THE problem.
“… mental health issues, I quickly say yes, a large % of americans are not well upstairs. However, the Holmes guy was apparently average dude and not under mental observation.”
My observation on mental health care was general, not specific to this guy.Something I wonder about, tho, as I mentioned in a later graph, was the role of SSRI drugs (prozac, paxil, etc) in shootings of this sort. The known side effects of these drugs are suicide, homicidal thoughts and more. A lot of folks who have done these kinds of killings have been on these drugs.We don’t know yet about this guy, but we need a lot more info about how these drugs work and why/how they are prescribed. It’s part of the lacking in mental health care that we pass these drugs out without sufficient study.
“I think alienation is a bigger problem.”
It is a big problem.
“…I think I can use target posts to judge your critiques since that provided needed context. Honestly, to me your critiques were opaque or cryptic…”
You’re free to judge as you please and I’m free to disagree with your judgements, as I did. I don’t think what I write is cryptic. It only gets hard to understand when you don’t read the whole thing (see comment #2 above)
“I do not have a problem with participating heated strong debates or even polarized ones. I’m only disgusted if they get really personal or threaten physical violence. If someone needs to walk away or gets turned off, that’s fine. They can come and go, if they want. Me too. I don’t think posts should be toned down, de-binaried, edited away, or styled in a particular fashion for the purpose of convincing certain folks to stick around.”
I don’t mind strong debates either. I do get tired of constant threadjacking, broken record talking points,etc, passing for debate.And when I get too tired of it I take off for awhile. I’m not afraid to call out people’s BS but I actually enjoy thoughtful discussions more. The left/right, lib/con crap gets pretty tedious.
July 28, 2012 at 3:42 pm #764760
redblackParticipantThe most dangerous gun owners are cops.
we pay them to carry guns, kootch. they have my consent. they’re trained in how to control violence. and that is the actual cost of living in a free society – especially one in which a random nut may decide to go ape shit with a machete in a day care center.
now, you may believe that the cops are the ones causing the violence, but the logical conclusion to that argument is that you prefer lawlessness and anarchy, and you prefer that everyone is packing heat to deter the lunatics.
sorry. sounds a little too much like nigeria or somalia to me. call me nostalgic, but i’d rather live next door to the cleavers than the nugents.
but, once again, i’m a second amendment democrat. where i draw the line is my front door, and i believe in the right to defend one’s home and the lives – not property – within it. furthermore, i think that most criminals are morons, and that they can be discouraged from approaching my home if i’m aware and smart.
what i don’t understand is the need to push that line of defense outward into the surrounding neighborhood, like that gonzales creep allegedly did. this ain’t deadwood, SD, ca. 1870. we have long since traded the right to make mayhem for our protection by government.
(don’t believe me? read some philosophy on government before you go trashing the notion of societies governing themselves as opposed to societies that are governed. you’ll see pretty quickly that america is the former and not the latter. although the case could be made that the aristocracy is once again ascendant, i doubt they want this chaos in their streets, either.)
i guess i could sum this screed up this way: you trust your fellow man to be responsible with deadly weapons, and are willing to give society at large the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the ability to buy guns at will. which i find strange. because, from where i sit, most of you can barely operate a motor vehicle, let alone know the laws governing them.
nah. no thanks. let’s leave public security to the cops.
Those are statistical facts.
“Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: ‘There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'”
–Mark Twain Chapters from My Autobiography 1906
July 28, 2012 at 3:49 pm #764761
redblackParticipantbut while that sounds all nice and conciliatory, the fact remains that, to a man, not one of you minutemen is willing to address the problem of lunatics getting high-capacity weapons and a metric ton of ammo.
you do a nice job of defending your rights, though. but like i said, you do a better job of defending the gun lobbies’ profits. and all without having to solve – or even address! – the violence problem.
nicely done.
July 28, 2012 at 7:07 pm #764762
DBPMember>> not one of you minutemen is willing to address the problem of lunatics getting high-capacity weapons and a metric ton of ammo.
Ha. That’s just the price they’re willing to pay for their 2nd Amendment freedoms, redblack.
They’re willing to trade OUR lives for THEIR guns.
Just like corporations that trade OUR lives for THEIR profits.
Â
It’s a free-market thang.
Â
July 29, 2012 at 4:59 pm #764763
redblackParticipantthe worst part, DP, is that they’re going to pretend this conversation never happened. i won’t get any answers – again – and they won’t ever admit that these questions were asked of them, let alone engage in any kind of inner dialogue that might lead to actual reform and control of high-capacity weapons or – god forbid – a reduction in these kinds of crimes. they won’t question the gun industries’ motives and maybe wonder if there aren’t some suckers among them who are propelling this argument in dangerous directions.
and they’ll never believe that liberals could possibly own guns, let alone want to allow them to keep their guns. the argument gets too complex then, and they can’t simply broadbrush us away as effete-yet-authoritarian marxists. i don’t know. maybe they’re afraid they might have something in common with one of us pinkos, or that their club – gun ownership, not the NRA – isn’t exclusive to conservatives.
here’s my policy: yes, you can have the weapon, but we want to know about large collections of assault rifles and bazookas and other military crap. no, you can’t buy 6,000 rounds over the internet. we want a couple forms of ID and a quick background check. and the answer might be “no“. home defense? great. hunting? fine.
arming an insurrection or mass-killing? no freaking way.
but between now and the election, the minutemen will reappear at the fringes of “tea party” rallies, silent but conspicuous, holding their weapons at rest, unquestioned and largely ignored by the rest with mutual consent, as a reminder that they’re the party of righteous freedom and that to question their motives might earn you a bullet.
July 30, 2012 at 5:15 am #764764
redblackParticipantyou wanna-be minutemen want to see exactly whose water you’re carrying? hmm?
y’all like john grisham, right? gold ole’ southern boy spins a mighty good yarn. yessiree. (and i’ll be mentioning his name in another subtopic in the ACA thread about tort reform pretty soon.)
check out runaway jury. it’s on ion tee vee, comcast 3/HD103 at 4 pm PDT monday 7/30, and 1 pm PDT tuesday 7/31.
oh, say, can you see?
i particularly liked the scene around 120 minutes in when dustin hoffman confronts gene hackman directly. kinda sums up the crux of this whole argument.
July 30, 2012 at 5:18 am #764765
Myr-myrParticipantWatching it right now.
July 30, 2012 at 3:49 pm #764766
kootchmanMemberIt’s a Class lll permit … and you can get em’… if you really want em. I just watched the interview with Scalia.. he says some restrictions are possible… the right to “bear” arms means actually carrying them… so cannons, no. crew served weapons, no.
July 30, 2012 at 4:37 pm #764767
DBPMemberWhat What WHAT ??
The Kootchman talking compromise? On guns!?
Somebody flag that post while I call SPD and check the “missing persons” list!
Any reports of black ‘copters buzzing around here yesterday?
July 30, 2012 at 4:40 pm #764768
DBPMemberJuly 31, 2012 at 6:59 am #764769
kootchmanMemberI didn’t say I favored them.. Scalia said… the right to “bear” arms may mean the physical limitation to actually “bear” them as in the ability to carry… but I certainly have carried an M-60 …. but I think it precludes a 105mm howitzer. KY is an unrestricted Class III state… I believe and is the only one. See what the ATF will sell ya in a parking lot in AZ…
August 1, 2012 at 4:32 pm #764770
JoBParticipantJV..
” Do you think that would have stopped those guys at the school yard or at the McDonalds? Would they be selling used cars, or volunteering at the Y? No these f’kers are crazy! They would have found an assault weapon because they don’t pay much attention to the laws. “
so is your argument really that we should make assault weapons available to mass murderers because they would find them on their own anyway?
really?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.