Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Aurora Colorado Violence
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1579 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 166 of 236 (668824)
07-24-2012 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Huntard
07-24-2012 3:54 PM


Re: Gun control question
My country won its independence after an 80 year war of independence against Spain.
Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks for the info. I stand (sit) corrected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Huntard, posted 07-24-2012 3:54 PM Huntard has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1579 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 167 of 236 (668827)
07-24-2012 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by hooah212002
07-24-2012 3:11 PM


Re: Gun control question
I thought it was message 64?
It was message 64. And then it was a message in reply to you. So that's at least two times. You accused me of having never done it.
Are you now admitting that you didn't define your usage until I called you on it?
So you're admitting that you lied when you claimed that I'd never defined my usage?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by hooah212002, posted 07-24-2012 3:11 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
(4)
Message 168 of 236 (668829)
07-24-2012 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Phat
07-21-2012 11:15 AM


Re: Say What? No Devil? No Demons?
In the Apostles and Jesus's era, everyone, biblicalists, heathens, educated and ignorant recognized the presence and powers of demonic entities, capable of entering humans and causing them to do un-natural evil.
Ask Berkowitz. He knew that Satan and/or his demons were powerful enough to make him do very sadistic and horible things to victims before killing them.
This was aired in the three interviews that James Dobson had with him after his conversion to Christianity. Under the power of God's Holy Spirit, He became just the opposite. He never ever wanted to leave Attica because he knew that he, in no way, deserved parole and he was being so blessed in prison helping the infirm and other inmated who he could help.
While under the influence of demons even the guards feared him. The were amazed to see a relatively sudden change in his behavior. Thus, the apostle's or Jesus's statement that conversion to Jesus, the christ/messiah would make respondents new creatures
Then, as with the Columbine boys, the were both heavily given prescription drug, ridilin. The side effects of many of these can cause humans to do unexplicitively terrible things. Not only that but they lower one's resistence to the demonic powers.
Yet the gov'mt and pharmacutials who find it more profitable to look for cures than to find them are trying to get control of all natural remedies so as eliminate alternative methodology. The side effects of the naturals are nearly all good. Go figure. Political power and the love of money is driving our health care system, in bed with the FDA.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Phat, posted 07-21-2012 11:15 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Coragyps, posted 07-24-2012 5:45 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 847 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(4)
(1)
Message 169 of 236 (668831)
07-24-2012 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Buzsaw
07-24-2012 5:23 PM


Re: Say What? No Devil? No Demons?
The side effects of the naturals are nearly all good.
Tetrodotoxin is 100% "natural," Buz.
And there ain't no such of a thing as a demon.
And I would like to see the study that showed that Ritalin lowered resistance to demons, particularly as they don't even exist. Was that in JAMA, or another journal?

"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Buzsaw, posted 07-24-2012 5:23 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3825 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 170 of 236 (668835)
07-24-2012 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by fearandloathing
07-24-2012 1:03 PM


F&L writes:
It can be difficult for someone who hasn't grown up with guns and the freedom to own them to understand the mentality of many Americans when it pertains to gun ownership. I grew up hunting and it was a right of passage as a boy to get a bb gun, then as a young man to receive my first real gun. I was taught well and consider myself to be a responsible owner.
Allowing every man/woman in America to be armed is good.
What could go wrong?

CRYSTALS!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by fearandloathing, posted 07-24-2012 1:03 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by fearandloathing, posted 07-24-2012 7:46 PM Panda has replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4257 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 171 of 236 (668839)
07-24-2012 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Panda
07-24-2012 6:46 PM


Allowing every man/woman in America to be armed is good.
???? WTF?? I never said or support what you are saying.

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
― Edward R. Murrow
"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them" - Ray Bradbury

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Panda, posted 07-24-2012 6:46 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Panda, posted 07-25-2012 5:22 AM fearandloathing has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3213 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(3)
Message 172 of 236 (668845)
07-24-2012 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2012 4:47 PM


Re: Gun control question
People who know nothing about guns wrote the Assault Weapos Ban.
So I guess you are saying that over 1900 Police Chiefs, Sherrifs and County Prosecuters are stupid for advocating to renew and strengthen the federal Assault Weapons Ban. Also the 318,000-member Fraternal Order of Police supported the Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act or the International Brotherhood of Police Officers. I guess they are stupid too?
Did they write the law?
No, but they endorsed it and recommended it's reenactment. Senator Jack Brooks, a former Marine Corps Colonel and WWII Veteran sponsored the bill along with Donald Edwards (another WWII vet, Navy gunnery and intelligence officer, and FBI Agent) Chuck Schumera and William Hughes.
Well they may or may not be stupid. But the people who wrote that law are definately stupid.
If you want to start ridiculous name calling, start with yourself. Myself, I place more credibility in two WWII veterans, police chiefs and other more intelligent sources than yourself in the matters of firearms.
You writes:
Me writes:
You writes:
Me writes:
You writes:
So how much did you contributed to the verbiage in the Assault Weapons Ban? If you have the experience, why was it written so poorly?
What is your point? What does me 'contributing' to the Assault Weapons Ban have to do with the price of tea in China? I was 19 years old when it was enacted and with less than a year in the Navy.
What does your experience and opinion about guns have to do with how stupid the Assault Weapons Ban was?
My point exactly. You are the one taking me down that rabbit hole.
No, you took yourself down it in Message 57:
The question (by YOU in MSG 131) was what does MY experience or opinion at the time have to do with the writing of the 1994 federal Assault Weapons Bill (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994). To get back to my point before you started this stupid banter, is that there are many people in and out of congress that sanction more regulation of firearms, many who have military, police and other related firearm backgrounds.
If those people aren't the ones who wrote the law, then how does it pertain to the point?
Why would thousands of police chiefs around the country support a law that you think is 'stupid'.
You haven't read about the Assault Weapon Ban, have you? It doesn't restrict magazine capacity, its restricts pistols from having magizines that attach outside of the grip. Who the hell cares where the magazine goes in and how does that address how dangerous a gun is and whether or not its an "assault weapon"? Its stupid!
Actually I did. Does it leave room for improvement. Sure. Does it fix all the problems. No. Does it restrict magazine capacity? Actually it does.
It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
...any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or
(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.
....
a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
...
`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.
Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
...
The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device'--
`(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but `(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.'
Did you read the bill or just wikipedia it.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 4:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by NoNukes, posted 07-24-2012 9:23 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 179 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-25-2012 12:33 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 236 (668846)
07-24-2012 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by DevilsAdvocate
07-24-2012 9:08 PM


Re: Gun control question
So I guess you are saying that over 1900 Police Chiefs, Sherrifs and County Prosecuters are stupid for advocating to renew and strengthen the federal Assault Weapons Ban.
Not stupid. But...
I suspect that law enforcement officers are not all that enamored with how the courts interpret the first, fourth and fifth amendments either. I'm sure that the police have some good reasons for wanting fewer guns on the street, but we cannot always rely on their good intentions as reasons to accept diminshing our rights.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-24-2012 9:08 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-24-2012 9:48 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 174 of 236 (668847)
07-24-2012 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2012 1:00 PM


Re: Gun control question
You can put a pistol grip, folding stock, and banana mag on a .22 and there'd be no good reason to call it an "assault weapon".
Well, y'know, Brenda Spencer, for example, did manage to carry out a shooting massacre using a .22 semi-automatic rifle. I don't know whether it had the accoutrements you mention, but if not then it was clearly quite dangerous even without them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 1:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by crashfrog, posted 07-25-2012 8:11 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 180 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-25-2012 12:40 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3213 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 175 of 236 (668848)
07-24-2012 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by NoNukes
07-24-2012 9:23 PM


Re: Gun control question
So I guess you are saying that over 1900 Police Chiefs, Sherrifs and County Prosecuters are stupid for advocating to renew and strengthen the federal Assault Weapons Ban.
Not stupid. But...
I suspect that law enforcement officers are not all that enamored with how the courts interpret the first, fourth and fifth amendments either. I'm sure that the police have some good reasons for wanting fewer guns on the street, but we cannot always rely on their good intentions as reasons to accept diminshing our rights.
Police and military are tax-paying citizens just like yourself. The same rights apply to them as well. Again unfettered individual rights without restrictions are (a) not feasible and (b) not constitutional. All rights must be weighed between an individuals rights and the rights of the people at large and public safety.
John Adams writes:
Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by NoNukes, posted 07-24-2012 9:23 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by NoNukes, posted 07-24-2012 10:27 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 176 of 236 (668849)
07-24-2012 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by DevilsAdvocate
07-24-2012 9:48 PM


Re: Gun control question
Police and military are tax-paying citizens just like yourself. The same rights apply to them as well.
That's fine. But generally speaking, I do not agree with law enforcement's opinion of what my rights ought to be. I'm not stupid enough to disagree with gun control just because the police are for it. In fact, I'm in favor of fairly strict gun control. But I am not the least bit persuaded by some sheriffs view on the matter.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-24-2012 9:48 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3825 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 177 of 236 (668857)
07-25-2012 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by fearandloathing
07-24-2012 7:46 PM


F&L writes:
???? WTF?? I never said or support what you are saying.
Ok - Let's try again.
Panda writes:
I am glad that so many Americans are arming themselves.
Keep up the good work.
It can only end well.
F&L writes:
It can be difficult for someone who hasn't grown up with guns and the freedom to own them to understand the mentality of many Americans when it pertains to gun ownership. I grew up hunting and it was a right of passage as a boy to get a bb gun, then as a young man to receive my first real gun. I was taught well and consider myself to be a responsible owner.
I own several weapons that have been passed down through the years from father to son, some guns for hunting and a couple for cheap target practice. I have a couple just because I can. I keep all of them in a gun safe unloaded, except for 1 shotgun for home defense as well as a 45 auto for the same purpose, I have no kids and my only concern would be having them stole. When I go out for any period of time then they get locked up with the others.
How does your reply relate to my original message?

CRYSTALS!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by fearandloathing, posted 07-24-2012 7:46 PM fearandloathing has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1579 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 178 of 236 (668858)
07-25-2012 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Dr Adequate
07-24-2012 9:47 PM


Re: Gun control question
Well, y'know, Brenda Spencer, for example, did manage to carry out a shooting massacre using a .22 semi-automatic rifle.
Right, and there's basically nobody who would consider a rifle chambered for .22 LR to be an "assault rifle." So a ban on such weapons - whatever they are, since there's no operating legal definition for that term - wouldn't have proved an impediment.
It just demonstrates the futility of trying to ban "assault rifles" as a category. The impetus to do so comes not from any verifiable evidence that such guns present a characteristic and unique danger, but from fear of the association of the term with military forces and SWAT. I think the evidence is overwhelming, however, that magazine restrictions would be more effective. Many of these shooters are apprehended during the reload; forcing more frequent reloads would mitigate the damage any individual mass-shooter is able to inflict. And there's just no legal ambiguity whatsoever about what constitutes a "round", a "magazine", or the number "seven." (I chose seven for basically the same reason everybody picks seven for everything.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-24-2012 9:47 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 179 of 236 (668870)
07-25-2012 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by DevilsAdvocate
07-24-2012 9:08 PM


Re: Gun control question
To get back to my point before you started this stupid banter, is that there are many people in and out of congress that sanction more regulation of firearms, many who have military, police and other related firearm backgrounds.
And that has nothing to do with my point that the verbiage in the AWB is incredibly stupid.
Why would thousands of police chiefs around the country support a law that you think is 'stupid'.
Because they're cops and they want people to not have guns more than they care about looking foolish for supporting a stupidly written law.
Does it restrict magazine capacity? Actually it does.
It does not restrict the capacity of the magazine that a rifle or pistol can take. The magazine restiction on pistols is about where the pistol can take the magazine, i.e. it has to go in the grip. And that's what I'm calling stupid. Making a pistol that takes a mag somewhere outside of the grip doesn't really make that gun more dangerous so its stupid to legislate against that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-24-2012 9:08 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-25-2012 1:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 183 by Modulous, posted 07-25-2012 2:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 180 of 236 (668871)
07-25-2012 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Dr Adequate
07-24-2012 9:47 PM


Re: Gun control question
Well, y'know, Brenda Spencer, for example, did manage to carry out a shooting massacre using a .22 semi-automatic rifle. I don't know whether it had the accoutrements you mention, but if not then it was clearly quite dangerous even without them.
All guns are dangerous. Singling out specific aesthetic properties of guns, like grip size, stock shape and mag placement, to indicate which ones are "assault weapons" or not shows that the people who drafted the law don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Its like when you look at SOPA and go: "Do these people have any idea how the internet works?"
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-24-2012 9:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-25-2012 10:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024