101 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >
 |
| 81. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jan 11, 2013, 23:12 |
Creston |
|
|
Cutter wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 20:57:
You agree with the War on Drugs? Why? It's a farce.
No, what I said was that I agree with his statement that we are unable to win the war on drugs.
And Homeland Security? Are you fucking kidding me?
I will refer you to the post I made below. Homeland Security has FINALLY made all our intelligence agencies actually share information, to the point where it's of some actual use to multiple outlets, and it's most definitely had success. Homeland Security's mandate isn't to protect us from an attack by a foreign power. That's what the Department of Defense is for.
(And are you SERIOUSLY saying that "all Japan did was attack Hawaii?" and that somehow wasn't an attack on the US? I mean, seriously?)
Creston |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 80. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jan 11, 2013, 23:11 |
Bhruic |
|
|
Guns in the US tend to get a rather unwarranted protection that seems out of place. All gun owners aren't unwilling to have a discussion, but with the ones that are, it seems that they have blinders on.
In most other areas of life, if something bad happens, we look at what we can do to avoid a repeat. One argument often used is how many people get killed by cars, but we still let people drive. Yes, but we went to the car manufacturers and imposed safety standards. We ensured that things like crash testing were done so we could minimize needless deaths. That's the sane reaction to the problem. Why is it that every time such a sane response to guns is suggested, it's immediately shouted down?
While I won't say that no one is suggesting that we take away all the guns, because I'm sure someone is, that's not a serious idea. But somewhere between "guns for everyone!" and "nobody can own a gun!" there should be a compromise that helps minimize events like Newtown or Aurora. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 79. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jan 11, 2013, 23:08 |
RollinThundr |
|
|
StingingVelvet wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 19:39:
The simple fact is a dozen or more factors are involved in ever one of these tragedies and the politicians and media act like only one thing was the cause. That's never true.
Mental illness, gun access, competitive culture, selfish culture, bullying and yes, violent media, are all involved. Unless we are going to radically change our entire country though the un-political thing to say is, bluntly: cost of doing business.
Overall violent crime is way down.
Well said Stinging. It's just so much easier for those on the left to find scape goats however, the NRA thing I don't get, the NRA didn't give these mentally ill people guns or train them to kill. All the NRA advocates is safe gun use and protecting the second amendment, yet liberals vilify them for it.
It's nice that there's at least one group out there looking to protect constitutional rights,because the left in the US certainly doesn't.
And Beamer, you've yet to give any insight on what to do either, except for bans that won't do anything since criminals generally don't follow laws to begin with, that's why they're criminals. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 78. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jan 11, 2013, 23:03 |
Creston |
|
|
Agent.X7 wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 19:52:
Creston, I hope you are not serious about that. That is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Oh, so the DHS has prevented terrorist attacks, huh? We have had ONE ever. Period. We had none before that, and none after.
That's like claiming... I don't know. I honestly cannot think of anything as stupid as what you just said.
One attack, huh? The 1975 and 1993 bombings in New York City don't count? Oklahoma City in 1995 doesn't count? And that's me being generous and assuming that you meant we had no terrorist attacks on American soil, because if you're literally saying what it appears you are saying, that America has had exactly ONE terrorist attack against it, period, may I suggest just going ahead and switching to a different news source, because then you just reached a level of fucking ignorance heretofore only claimed by the President of fucking Iran.
And no attacks after?
let me just go back three years:
2010
May 1, New York City: a car bomb is discovered in Times Square, New York City after smoke is seen coming from a vehicle. The bomb was ignited, but failed to detonate and was disarmed before it could cause any harm. Times Square was evacuated as a safety precaution. Faisal Shahzad pleads guilty to placing the bomb as well as 10 terrorism and weapons charges.
Oct. 29: two packages are found on separate cargo planes. Each package contains a bomb consisting of 300 to 400 grams (11-14 oz) of plastic explosives and a detonating mechanism. The bombs are discovered as a result of intelligence received from Saudi Arabia's security chief. The packages, bound from Yemen to the United States, are discovered at en route stop-overs, one in England and one in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.
2011
Jan. 17, Spokane, Washington: a pipe bomb is discovered along the route of the Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial march. The bomb, a "viable device" set up to spray marchers with shrapnel and to cause multiple casualties, is defused without any injuries.
"Awr shit the DHS dun do nothing there aint no attacks being made agains ush!" Solid argument there, numbnuts.
Creston |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 77. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jan 11, 2013, 21:11 |
Prez |
|
|
You agree with the War on Drugs? Why? It's a farce.
By the way the original post and his response were worded, it seems he was agreeing with the assertion that the war on drugs was NOT won. I THINK he is saying the war on drugs was a failure but the war on terror was a moderate success. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 76. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jan 11, 2013, 20:57 |
Cutter |
|
|
Creston wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 14:51:
Agent.X7 wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 14:33:
For all our military might, we have been unable to win the war on drugs, the war on terrorism,
I'll agree with the War on Drugs, but the War on Terrorism? Last I checked, the US has not had an attack against the "homeland" since the formation of the Department of Homeland Security. (and the start of the rather poorly named "war on terror.")
I'd call that a pretty reasonable success.
Creston
You agree with the War on Drugs? Why? It's a farce. It's an extension of the Prison-Industrial Complex. So long as anyone isn't harming anyone with what they put in their body it's no one's goddamn business. You can't say booze and legal drugs are ok, but not pot, etc. Like everything else in this world most people can handle their shit. If we made everything illegal because of a handful of assholes who can't than nothing would be legal.
And Homeland Security? Are you fucking kidding me? A handful of religious sheepherders drive 2 planes into buildings and that justifies a trillion dollar intelligence apparatus in which you're stripped of your liberties in the name of safety? What about Timothy Veigh and his inbred hillbilly right-wing fanatics? When has America ever been attacked by a foreign power? Japan in WWII and ever that's stretching it seeing as it was Hawaii - a land you took over and colonized by force. A handful of nuts have attempted to attack America and not one single foreign power - while the reverse is shocking in it's scope and depth and you say the DHS is a success? Shit man, I have some magic rocks that when I bang them together keeps tigers away. You don't see any tigers do you?
Creston, you're much smarter than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "Peter, breakfast for dinner is anarchy!" - Lois |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 75. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jan 11, 2013, 20:49 |
Cutter |
|
|
Prez wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 19:58:
Agent.X7 wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 19:55:
That said, the NRA is a failure because it caters to the most fanatical of gun owners and gun rights advocates and does next to nothing to promote responsible gun ownership from what I've seen.
Do more research. The NRA provides a ton of gun safety programs and education, most of it free of charge.
I did research the NRA when I started buying weapons for self defense. I find them to be an extremist organization and I would be embarrassed to be a part of it. The NRA does not promote responsible gun ownership. Gun safety and responsible ownership are not the same. Gun safety is "always make sure your weapon is unloaded before cleaning it". Responsible ownership is "ask yourself if its worth risking owning high powered military style rifles if you have mentally unstable people living with you." The NRA's attitude on gun ownership is 'the more the merrier' without regard for the fact that, like being allowed to drive a car, not everyone is capable of handling the responsibility of owning weapons.
Exactly. The NRA is a mouthpiece for arms manufacturers who want to make sales, nothing more. Damn the torpedoes and fuck who gets killed so long as people can have their machine guns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "Peter, breakfast for dinner is anarchy!" - Lois |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 74. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jan 11, 2013, 20:45 |
Cutter |
|
|
RollinThundr wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 14:18:
Banning 30 round clips isn't going to stop some nutbag from shooting people or modifying a gun to fire fully automatic, An AR-15 stock is a semi automatic, not fully auto, it's a total knee jerk reaction to make those on the left who are anti gun feel good.
Your argument right there neagtes the need for an assault rifle with c-clips. If all it take is one bullet than all that's needed is a single handgun and a good shot. What the fuck good is anything else? Remember those 2 bank robbers in California in body armour? Cops were plinking away at them like a duck gallery and nothing. So your answer is what? Escalation until everyone owns AP ammo and maybe some grenades? Where does it stop? You have to consider what is reasonable for most people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "Peter, breakfast for dinner is anarchy!" - Lois |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 73. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jan 11, 2013, 19:58 |
Prez |
|
|
Agent.X7 wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 19:55:
That said, the NRA is a failure because it caters to the most fanatical of gun owners and gun rights advocates and does next to nothing to promote responsible gun ownership from what I've seen.
Do more research. The NRA provides a ton of gun safety programs and education, most of it free of charge.
I did research the NRA when I started buying weapons for self defense. I find them to be an extremist organization and I would be embarrassed to be a part of it. The NRA does not promote responsible gun ownership. Gun safety and responsible ownership are not the same. Gun safety is "always make sure your weapon is unloaded before cleaning it". Responsible ownership is "ask yourself if its worth risking owning high powered military style rifles if you have mentally unstable people living with you." The NRA's attitude on gun ownership is 'the more the merrier' without regard for the fact that, like being allowed to drive a car, not everyone is capable of handling the responsibility of owning weapons.
This comment was edited on Jan 11, 2013, 20:03. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 72. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jan 11, 2013, 19:55 |
Agent.X7 |
|
|
That said, the NRA is a failure because it caters to the most fanatical of gun owners and gun rights advocates and does next to nothing to promote responsible gun ownership from what I've seen.
Do more research. The NRA provides a ton of gun safety programs and education, most of it free of charge. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Seven Star Gaming - Sayre, PA |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 71. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jan 11, 2013, 19:53 |
Agent.X7 |
|
|
What is the punishment?
The current proposal makes it harder to get guns. Not impossible. Harder. More background checks. If you're innocent the only thing you lose is a high capacity magazine. That doesn't really seem like much of a loss.
Outlawing Pizza doesn't seem like much of a loss to people who don't like pizza either. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Seven Star Gaming - Sayre, PA |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 70. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jan 11, 2013, 19:52 |
Prez |
|
|
Gun control debate aside, why is anyone ever surprised that a special interest group like the NRA would act in anything other than a self-serving manner concerning its own interests? To expect the NRA to condemn gun ownership, lament the availability of all types of guns, or call for stricter gun control is sort of like expecting the ESA 5to come out and say "Yeah, games are too violent and cause mass shootings so we think that the government should pass laws limiting what content developers can put in their games". The idea is crazy - why would any special interest act contrary to the very interest it was established to protect?
That said, the NRA is a failure because it caters to the most fanatical of gun owners and gun rights advocates and does next to nothing to promote responsible gun ownership from what I've seen. It deflects and sidesteps instead of helping formulate practical solutions to the problem of mass shootings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 69. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jan 11, 2013, 19:52 |
Agent.X7 |
|
|
Creston wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 14:51:
Agent.X7 wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 14:33:
For all our military might, we have been unable to win the war on drugs, the war on terrorism,
I'll agree with the War on Drugs, but the War on Terrorism? Last I checked, the US has not had an attack against the "homeland" since the formation of the Department of Homeland Security. (and the start of the rather poorly named "war on terror.")
I'd call that a pretty reasonable success.
Creston
Creston, I hope you are not serious about that. That is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Oh, so the DHS has prevented terrorist attacks, huh? We have had ONE ever. Period. We had none before that, and none after.
That's like claiming... I don't know. I honestly cannot think of anything as stupid as what you just said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Seven Star Gaming - Sayre, PA |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 68. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jan 11, 2013, 19:39 |
StingingVelvet |
|
|
The simple fact is a dozen or more factors are involved in ever one of these tragedies and the politicians and media act like only one thing was the cause. That's never true.
Mental illness, gun access, competitive culture, selfish culture, bullying and yes, violent media, are all involved. Unless we are going to radically change our entire country though the un-political thing to say is, bluntly: cost of doing business.
Overall violent crime is way down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 67. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jan 11, 2013, 16:14 |
Mashiki Amiketo |
|
|
sauron wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 11:40:
The regular police in the UK (the world's first police force, founded by Sir Robert Peel in 1829) have never been armed, by design. Their only armed units are anti-terrorist and SWAT teams. Have you ever read any history? It appears not.
And no, I'm not just following the narrative and am well aware of the specifications of the weapons in question.
And the founding document has nothing to do with it. Last refuge of the NRA apologist. Right. For someone who says "have you ever read any history" you'd best go back and read history, british police were armed several times. And continue to be so to this day outside of anti terrorist units and swat teams.
And if you're following the "specifications" then you know that there is no such thing as an assault weapon outside of what's been created by talking points.
That founding document has plenty to do with it, perhaps you should jump back oh..what was it 1909 I believe was the case. And "read some history" before you claim that someone is a NRA apologist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--
"For every human problem,
there is a neat, simple solution;
and it is always wrong."
--H.L. Mencken |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 66. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jan 11, 2013, 16:09 |
Beamer |
|
|
RollinThundr wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 15:25:
I also said perhaps rather than shove pills down people's throats, look at other ways to help mentally unstable people get help, rather than blame guns or whatever else you guys want to blame.
What would you do aside from knee jerk gun bans to help these people?
I used Piers as an example of what the media is pushing forth to confuse the issue to tug on heart strings, and solely blame other factors like the NRA, when it isn't the root of the issue.
Who? Who is going to do this?
Will the FDA mandate anything?
Will some governing body for psychiatrist change best practices?
Will all doctors suddenly say "hey, less pills!" and all patients will say "yes, I agree"?
You have NOT offered a solution. You have not offered ANY action. You're barely indicating a direction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 65. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jan 11, 2013, 15:28 |
sauron |
|
|
Beamer wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 15:20:
Should we ask Snooki what she thinks about guns?
She went on record as saying she likes big pistols.
And yes, I'll be here all week.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 64. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jan 11, 2013, 15:25 |
RollinThundr |
|
|
Beamer wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 15:20:
RollinThundr wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 15:10:
Beamer wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 15:03:
Part of the problem is that RollinThundr feels the need to respond not to anyone here but to Piers Morgan. The only people I've ever seen even mention Piers Morgan, let alone pay attention to him, are gun advocates.
No one else is beating his drum, but RollinThundr responds to him, not to us.
translation: Well I can't debate what you're saying about mental health or attacks on the 2nd amendment from the left, so I'm going to personally attack you.
Same ol same ol from the usual suspects. Why not debate the full content of that post rather than taking one sentence out of it to toss out some personal attacks Beamer?
Jesus, dude. I agreed with you on the mental health issue. I just said we can't really do anything about it. I then asked you what you would do about it. You didn't answer. You just said "the mother shouldn't have had guns in the house with a mentally unstable boy." That isn't a proposed solution, it's a statement of fact.
I have agreed with your statement of fact that the mother probably shouldn't have had those guns
I have agreed with your statement of fact that mental illness is a cause of most (but not all) of these shootings.
I have not seen you turn "the real issue is mental illness" into a solution, though.
So... you are giving me nothing to debate. Instead you keep throwing out Piers Morgan. Only you mention him. No one here. Just you. No solutions from you, just talking points aimed at a celebrity that isn't here and no one here seems to support.
Should we ask Snooki what she thinks about guns?
I also said perhaps rather than shove pills down people's throats, look at other ways to help mentally unstable people get help, rather than blame guns or whatever else you guys want to blame.
What would you do aside from knee jerk gun bans to help these people?
I used Piers as an example of what the media is pushing forth to confuse the issue to tug on heart strings, and solely blame other factors like the NRA, when it isn't the root of the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 63. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jan 11, 2013, 15:20 |
Beamer |
|
|
RollinThundr wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 15:10:
Beamer wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 15:03:
Part of the problem is that RollinThundr feels the need to respond not to anyone here but to Piers Morgan. The only people I've ever seen even mention Piers Morgan, let alone pay attention to him, are gun advocates.
No one else is beating his drum, but RollinThundr responds to him, not to us.
translation: Well I can't debate what you're saying about mental health or attacks on the 2nd amendment from the left, so I'm going to personally attack you.
Same ol same ol from the usual suspects. Why not debate the full content of that post rather than taking one sentence out of it to toss out some personal attacks Beamer?
Jesus, dude. I agreed with you on the mental health issue. I just said we can't really do anything about it. I then asked you what you would do about it. You didn't answer. You just said "the mother shouldn't have had guns in the house with a mentally unstable boy." That isn't a proposed solution, it's a statement of fact.
I have agreed with your statement of fact that the mother probably shouldn't have had those guns
I have agreed with your statement of fact that mental illness is a cause of most (but not all) of these shootings.
I have not seen you turn "the real issue is mental illness" into a solution, though.
So... you are giving me nothing to debate. Instead you keep throwing out Piers Morgan. Only you mention him. No one here. Just you. No solutions from you, just talking points aimed at a celebrity that isn't here and no one here seems to support.
Should we ask Snooki what she thinks about guns? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 62. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jan 11, 2013, 15:18 |
Bodolza |
|
|
RollinThundr wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 14:50:
The facts don't lie, the states in which these incidents are happening tend to have the strictest gun laws already and are blue states.
Facts? OK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
In 2004 presidential election:
Louisiana 56.7/42 Repub/Dem
Maryland 42.9/55.9
Mississippi 59.4/39.7
California 44.4/54.3
Nevada 50.4/47.9
South Carolina 58.0/40.9
Illinois 44.5/54.8
Michigan 47.8/51.2
Arizona 54.9/44.4
New Mexico 49.8/49.0
Georgia 58.0/41.4
Missouri 59.4/39.7
Arkansas 54.3/44.6
Texas 61.0/38.2
Tennessee 56.8/42.5
So, for the top 15 states in gun violence, during the 2004 election, 4 were considered "blue" states, and the remaining 11 are "red" states. If you want to keep going, the next 8 out of 10 are also "red" states.
Either the "red" states love themselves stricter gun control regulation, or you are full of shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
101 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
