 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 02 Dec 15 - 03:04 PM With sincere sympathy to the families involved. But when are you guys going to learn. Please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Backwoodsman Date: 28 Nov 15 - 06:32 AM For fuck's sake! I was pulling BillD's leg by repeating his last senrence! Back the fuck off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,American Date: 28 Nov 15 - 06:17 AM "You Americans" What stereotype are you? I dont own a gun. Am i still included? Perhaps you are a stereotypical gun hater that stereotypes others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Backwoodsman Date: 27 Nov 15 - 07:45 AM But if you Americans really wanted to change...... 😜😄😉 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Bill D Date: 26 Nov 15 - 06:52 PM Way back in Oct., McGrath said: "Whatever the 2nd amendment means, if Americans wanted to change it, they could. " I was answering various points back then, somehow I missed a direct reply to that..(although I answered it in other places.) I will state that McGrath's remark is technically true, but trivially so. *IF* enough people in enough states elected enough of the 'right' legislators, we could have either a constitutional convention or have an amendment proposed to change things. from this site:http://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp "How is the Constitution amended?" Article V of the Constitution prescribes how an amendment can become a part of the Constitution. While there are two ways, only one has ever been used. All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment. The other method of passing an amendment requires a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States. That Convention can propose as many amendments as it deems necessary. Those amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the states." Note: This is after and IF we elect the legislators who will introduce the amendment at all! Before that, we have to solve the Gerrymandering of Congressional districts that keep electing Conservatives even when more liberals live in the state. Someone said "money talks", and it talks very loudly when those who already have too many guns are spending more money to make sure they can buy MORE guns. ... and still I can't quite get the idea across that amending a vague 250 year old rule to make sense is very clearly NOT what gun owners and manufacturers want!! (If you are in the gun business, you need a mentality that says "everyone needs more guns!" even when there are already too many guns. Guns don't decay or mold and go bad... so there is no simple, automatic mechanism for a continuing need.) They are using the rules to make sure the rules are not amended! The Supreme Court? 'Maybe' if we get a 7-2 liberal court someday... that is, 7 justices who are willing to risk their own lives and deal with an uprising of today's brand of militias who already have enough guns to start a war....add to this the simplistic idea that recent increases in gun violence means we all 'need' guns for self-defense and.............. gee, I hope I don't have to repeat all this again when someone says "but if you Americans really wanted to change..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 26 Nov 15 - 12:44 PM No one's arguing we should make machine guns legal. The NRA is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Joe B. Date: 26 Nov 15 - 11:04 AM "The Supreme Court has ruled that it's an individual right. It is not a corporate right. It is not related to a well-established militia, a well-regulated militia. But it also has ruled that it is constitutional to own a gun individually for purposes of sporting, hunting, and/or self-defense... It is an individual right, but it is also clear constitutionally that the government can limit the type of weapon you can own. For example, if the idea was to be able to repel a tyrannical government, then you should be able to own an F-15 if you have the money to buy it, with full ordnance. But you're not allowed to do that, and the court says you can deny certain weapons available for individual ownership. You can't have a nuclear bomb. So it is an individual right. You have a right for self-defense against any intruder or any illegal activity being perpetrated on you, and for your physical self-defense... Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door. Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semiautomatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming. We can argue whether that's true or not, but it is no argument that, for example, a shotgun could do the same job of protecting you. Now, granted, you can come back and say, Well, a machine gun could do a better job of protecting me. No one's arguing we should make machine guns legal." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,🔫 Date: 26 Nov 15 - 08:03 AM Too many people die from ignorance and stupidity violence would be a more accurate statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 26 Nov 15 - 12:23 AM Guest,Ericka Bernabe: "More people die from gun violence in America than anything else and that is what we should take more seriously." Too many people die from gun violence would be a more accurate statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Ericka Bernabe Date: 25 Nov 15 - 09:43 PM "More people die from gun violence in America than anything else and that is what we should take more seriously." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Stim Date: 20 Nov 15 - 10:01 AM My point above was that it is not that difficult to find other options. I don't have time to pull up and link the sources for this and I probably shouldn't mention it, but... In the US, the majority of shooting deaths are suicides. One sad thing that the US and the UK share is that we have very similar suicide rates. In the UK, perhaps because guns are less available, hanging is the preferred means. Again, I am not a gun rights person, I am just saying that the simple solutions are not going to solve the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Backwoodsman Date: 19 Nov 15 - 01:54 PM But it makes it far more difficult for those of wilful, murderous intent to have the means to carry out that intent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Stim Date: 19 Nov 15 - 10:46 AM There are lots of things that people use to kill other people. A lot of people seem to object to the guns, rather than the killing. In the bloodiest battle in history, Hannibal's assault on Canae, something akin to 70,000 lives were lost in a single day. And not a gun in sight. The most murderous single act in history, the destruction of the dikes on the Yellow River on June 5 and June 7 in 1938 is claimed to have resulted in 900,000 deaths. The dikes were destroyed with explosives, and water did the rest. The 1-2 million killed in the Rwandan Genocide were mostly dispatched with machetes. I could go on. That said, I don't think that guns should be left out so that toddlers can kill their family members, that people should be allowed to shoot up Chevy Dealerships, or that, as seems to be happening in Enid, Oklahoma, people should drive around shooting windows out of passing cars There seems to be a sentiment here that "gun control" will solve everything, but the common element in all of these atrocities is not gun ownership, it is a willful, murderous intent, and gun legislation doesn't regulate that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 18 Nov 15 - 05:23 PM Guns don't kill people, wars kill people...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Stim Date: 18 Nov 15 - 04:13 PM Guns don't actually protect you-if they did, no one would ever die in combat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Date: 18 Nov 15 - 12:36 AM Wish I still had my Johnny Seven O.M.A ...💥 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,raggytash Date: 17 Nov 15 - 06:59 PM You guys are crazy!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST Date: 17 Nov 15 - 05:25 PM 12. 33 caliber pellets, attacker problem solved |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Charlie Date: 17 Nov 15 - 04:54 PM I prefer a 50 cal ala rambo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Backwoodsman Date: 17 Nov 15 - 03:41 PM There's your answer, Charlie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST Date: 17 Nov 15 - 03:30 PM If you want a real saw off shotgun just spend 200 bucks for the tax stamp then you can cut it any size legally |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST Date: 17 Nov 15 - 03:21 PM Shotgun 20 inch police barrel and 00 buck, that's my home security system |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Charlie Date: 17 Nov 15 - 02:35 PM "Gun owners are a far worse risk to kids than perverts." Howso? Please explain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Batshit Crazy Date: 14 Nov 15 - 10:28 PM "You don't need an AR-15." "Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 14 Nov 15 - 06:10 PM Unfortunately, there are millions of idiots who WILL believe Trump & preety soon we'll have the O.K Corral redux all across the U.S. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Lighter Date: 14 Nov 15 - 04:57 PM Rap is 100% correct. However, Donald Trump insists that with laxer gun laws in Paris, "the situation would have been very different." And Newt Gingrich warns that every American who can get a permit to carry had better start doing so - before it's too late. So who ya gonna believe? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Backwoodsman Date: 14 Nov 15 - 01:36 PM Absolutely spot-on Rap. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Rapparee Date: 14 Nov 15 - 09:50 AM Guess what? You can get a gun anywhere if you know the right people and are willing to pay enough. Strip a gun and ship the components. Would you know a sear if you saw one? Or a trigger spring from any other spring? Or hide the entire weapon in a cargo of pipes, or inside a bag of cement. Or have a machine shop available and build it -- the plans are available. Or use one left over from one of the many wars. As for self-defense, that's a specious argument. First, the baddies have to fire first (it's just not done to shoot someone because you think he or she might be a bad 'un). Secondly, it you're armed you're the first target. Thirdly, unless you've been in actual, blood-and-brains-on-the-ground combat you have no idea how you will react when someone is shooting at you with the intent to kill. Fourthly, the police or military will be shooting anyone who is "not one of us" who has a gun. And you will get this thread closed if you keep using it as a mouthpiece for your views. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 14 Nov 15 - 09:10 AM Last post compliments of Dr. Batshit Crazy, or his campaign organizers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Charlie Date: 14 Nov 15 - 06:41 AM "France outlaws most gun ownership and it's almost impossible to legally acquire a high-powered rifle such as an AK-47, so where did the weapons in the Nov. 13 terror attack—not to mention the bloody January assault by Islamic terrorists on the Paris office of Charlie Hebdo magazine and the 2012 shootings by a militant in Toulouse— come from?" Getting rid of guns does not solve anything. It makes matters worse because people are unable to defend themselves. Killers will get guns no matter what even if they have to make them. Remember zip guns? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,bitsey Date: 13 Nov 15 - 07:25 AM " it's the righteous people we need to look out for." Exactly. Ribhteous people who hate guns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 28 Oct 15 - 12:40 PM Interesting Article Here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 22 Oct 15 - 04:25 AM My few posts to this thread are still there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 21 Oct 15 - 09:24 PM Jack, the last post I made to this thread was Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:41 PM so I suspect it was a troll doing an impersonation. I do agree with you btw, but I choose to express my views in a different manner. My thoughts have pretty much been concerned with the Canadian election recently and the few breaks I took from that dealt with other things on Mudcat. I think that the deleted posts were because it was a troll. I know a few of the moderators and truth be told they are not as nefarious as some folks think. In fact, they are really good people and we are fortunate to have them. Best wishes to you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Bill D Date: 21 Oct 15 - 07:41 PM Some are trying.... http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/10/15/california-official-to-propose-background-checks-for-ammunition-purchase.html The NRA, of course, claims the "slippery slope" defense It is slow, but wheels ARE turning... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Jack Campin Date: 21 Oct 15 - 06:46 PM I see the gun-nut mod has gone berserk again. I have posted several news links to related manifestations of US gun culture over the last few days - they have been deleted and so have responses by people like "#" and Peter Laban (all agreeing with me as far as I could see). Whoever you are, you gutless anonymous twat, fuck you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,mg Date: 21 Oct 15 - 06:12 PM I was in Oregon when this happened...I live close by...and we can not go into a store in this area without thinking of it because a local brand of ice cream is Umpqua from there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Richard Bridge Date: 21 Oct 15 - 10:54 AM Darwin? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST, ^*^ Date: 21 Oct 15 - 10:47 AM A Texas woman was just blown away with a shotgun at 4am in her home when her husband heard movement in the living room and fired without saying anything or turning on a light. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Jack Campin Date: 21 Oct 15 - 08:11 AM Florida excels itself with two in a couple of days: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/19/florida-shooting-zombie-con-police-suspect I haven't seen any followup to the reports that there was a Christian picket of the event immediately before the shooting. Anybody local know what church was involved and if they have a record of sectarian violence? And Florida extends its open season on blacks: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/20/us/florida-officer-shooting/index.html http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/21/corey-jones-shooting-officer-involved-had-previous-suspension-threat Having a gun did a lot to protect Jones, didn't it? About as useful as it was to this cop in Minnesota: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/18/us/minnesota-deputy-killed/ At least the toddlers aren't getting it all their own way: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/21/us/child-road-rage-death/index.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 19 Oct 15 - 09:29 AM And again: guns in the house? This is what you will end up with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: frogprince Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:35 PM Guns don't kill people, Toddlers kill people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:20 PM Would also help to require that Republican Senators and Congressmen have an IQ above 12. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:41 PM Require that all gun owners carry liability insurance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:37 PM bloody hell !!! where's Mary Poppins when the Yanks really need her...!!!??? 😬 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Jack Campin Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:27 PM These people shoot an American a week with complete legal impunity: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Ebbie Date: 14 Oct 15 - 05:27 PM I agree, Guest #. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 14 Oct 15 - 10:18 AM There was a great suggestion on Facebook about how to get the gun thing in America under control. Require that all gun owners carry liability insurance. The insurance industry would have the gun industry by the short and curlies in less than a year, second amendment notwithstanding. I think it's a brilliant idea and worthy of consideration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Wesley S Date: 13 Oct 15 - 08:44 AM And "Heaven is a gun free zone"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Date: 13 Oct 15 - 07:09 AM Maybe some more progressive church leaders could start a national "God says no to guns" Campaign... "There are no guns in the bible" "No entry to heaven if you're packing" "The Devil welcomes careless shooters" etc etc etc [more at TeeShirtSlogansRus.com] See if the big beardy old man in the sky's disapproval makes any difference.... 😇 |
