Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry to get snippy, but honestly, I figured you knew about the event and were simply disregarding it at all costs.
For the most part, bans exist solely on known risks, which were compiled by actual prior attempts.
Honestly I thought they were concerned about someone might hide something in the shampoo. However I am still cynical of the new laws and responses America has done since 9/11. I am cynical of every politician and those who just go along with them after a tragedy, as I am cynical of the politicians and people who will demanding new laws and bans on guns. Rarely do restrictions stop where they were suppose to.
Honestly I thought they were concerned about someone might hide something in the shampoo. However I am still cynical of the new laws and responses America has done since 9/11. I am cynical of every politician and those who just go along with them after a tragedy, as I am cynical of the politicians and people who will demanding new laws and bans on guns. Rarely do restrictions stop where they were suppose to.
Pols did not decide what to ban; folks on the front lines (airport screening) were the ones whose input was most valued. And that was the prudent thing to do.
It is a give and take situation. Ban certain "assault weapons" but also call for tighter restrictions on violent movies and video games. Let the Liberals defend Hollywood and especially those "beautiful people' in Hollywood defend violent movies.
There is NO smart position in this battle. The fact is that having weapons freely available that are designed only for the purpose of killing many many people, shooting through bullet proof vests, etc. etc is STUPID to the max. It's actually unqualified idiocy, lunatic level dumbness and THE American mental disease.
Now, tell me please your "SMART" position.
So if a Neonazi armed to the teeth tries to kill my socialist mulatto butt, I'm suppose to wait like a helpless lamb for the police, who may well let the Nazi kill me because that would be "one less red" and arrest him later?
There is NO smart position in this battle. The fact is that having weapons freely available that are designed only for the purpose of killing many many people, shooting through bullet proof vests, etc. etc is STUPID to the max. It's actually unqualified idiocy, lunatic level dumbness and THE American mental disease.
Now, tell me please your "SMART" position.
good, then you dont mind telling the cops, military and civilian arm of the federal goverment to give their firearms up 1st.
Why no question as to why someone decides to pick up a gun and go on a murder spree? If you do not go to the root of the problem you will do nothing to solve the real problem.
I've been giving a lot of thought to this question for a number of years and I do believe to a certain extent, guns do kill people.
I had a very good friend who was a retired member of the NYPD's Emergency Management Squad, the NYPD's name for its SWAT team who taught "tactical" gun courses. From time to time he would get me to attend one of his classes and I would show up with my latest carry/defense weapon and I always found myself amazed and somewhat sardonically amused by the what his students would bring to class. While I would show up with a five shot .357 or a small semi-auto in 9mm or in the end a .40 S&W without any modifications my fellow classmates would show up with the latest laser sighted semi-autos with large capacity magazines, picatinny rails, custom magazine wells and all the accouterments of a well armed member of the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team. Not that these are the most needed items for self-defense or needed at all for that matter but because the latest issue of American Handgun, Handguns magazine, or Guns and Ammo told them with beautiful full color photographs (really the photography is top notch) that this is was what they needed to stave off the hords of Zombies and other undead, living or not.
The "tactical" gun and the magazines that promote them conjure up in the mind of their buyers fantasies of clearing rooms, taking down multiple attackers, just like Navy SEALS or the local SWAT team. Fantasies that for those with healthy stable minds, are played out in classes like those I attend where students pay hundreds to thousands of dollars to run through a course meant to simulate a running gun battle or during the myriad of "practical" pistol competitions that are held around the country. But unfortunately for others, as we have seen all too often the fantasy isn't enough.
I base this upon a simple question that I often ask my fellow classmates, do you really need all of that, which is invariably answered with the same talking points that we read here; it's my right, you never can tell when you will need it, but never an admission that it is because it is cool, damn near sexy. Why else do middle aged suburban white guys who doesn't frequent high crime areas, doesn't buy drugs, makes more than $75,000 a year, you have a better chance of winning the lottery than the multiple end of times scenarios that they spend thousands of dollars preparing for.
I also base this argument on the fact that when we consider the weapons that the mass shooters use are never of the run of the mill variety. They don't use dad's lever action deer gun, skeet guns, revolvers, or the unglamorous yet equally lethal weapons that are just as ubiquitous as any other. It's alway the sexy weapons of the dogs of war, Glocks, Sigs, AR's and high capacity short barreled shotguns. The guns of stage, and screen and the gun porn magazines. To argue that the gun doesn't produce lethal fantasies is like arguing that a new Ferrari doesn't produce fantasies of racing along the Autobond. And those fantasies that guns produce in the minds of the unstable kill just as much as the unstable personality that pulls the trigger.
This is a long piece for me and I have a lot to do today so I don't have time to nail down what I want to say as well as I might if I spent the time working this over. So perhaps it would be better to point to Josh Marshalls piece about the fetishization of American gun culture.
Full disclosure: I was given my first gun by my grandfather, a Remmington .22 rifle, when I was 11 years old at the time the only thing that I wanted to do was to shoot bottle caps off of fence posts that my grandfather would set up for me. After leaving the service I have bought sold, and traded more guns than I can remember and for a brief period got caught up in the "tactical" gun craze fully aware that I could defend myself just as well with any other type of firearm be it a rifle of a pistol. For a number of years I chased after the ultimate "defensive" handgun before settling on a low capacity semi-auto pistol that I rarely carry despite have a permit to do so.
Ovcatto, I respect you, one of the posters here I enjoy reading even though we don't always see eye to eye. But I don't think it is so much that most get caught up in being a "mall ninja" getting all "tacticool". Plenty of people owning AR-15's , AK, Glocks or whatnot that will never use them wrongly.
A pet peave of mine is this ban is sure to include something like a M1A rifle which is hardly a assault rifle, it is big, it is heavy, a popular target rifle yet it will be thrown into the claims of being a "assault rifle" and banned. And the general public not into guns will just believe when they are told that it is some evil rifle.
It is clear that anti gun Democrats want to stop gun ownership as much as they can and NOT just stop possible crime. If they had their way ( and right now they think they can) they would tax ammo so no one could afford to shoot, ban ammo so no one could get ammo to shoot, make license requirements so strict most would not be approved as examples. When a box of 9mm costs $50 dollars shooting sports will pretty much stop.
They have showed their true colors in the last few days after swaring before " we support the right to have guns" and calling us paranoid for thinking they were out to stop gun ownership.
Obviously we don't. If gun owners were "controlling" their guns, they wouldn't be getting into the hands of criminals.
Most crimes committed with guns, use STOLEN guns.
Keep them locked up in a safe, or on your person.
yep, alot of them are also stolen from cops and the feds including the military. plus the little fact that our dear leader likes to have the batf give them away as well, just not to private citizens.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
