26 dead in Connecticut elementary school

[prole]

Or have gone through a gun ownership class and been evaluated for mental illness and have had a background check and are under 24/7 surveillance to make sure they can't circumvent the system.

 

I like how this and the NRA's responses are predicated on the ongoing availability of guns AND run counter to to the supposed aim of a freer society. Want less government up in your ass? Want less police-state ('good guys with guns')? That can only come from the across the board disarming of America. Giving up the 2nd amendment would actually make us freer.

[prole]

Hey American Morons! Get this through your skulls! I do not want to live in even more of a surveillance state with more armed cops, security guards, metal detectors and cameras, dogs, carry and carry-free zones. Nor do I want to indulge your paranoid persecution fantasies about The Government or your race-based fears about self-protection or the apocalyptic meltdown of society just because you need a surrogate metal penis. Ironically your gun fetish is making the rest of us less free and less safe. Thanks and please locate your nearest gun buyback facility as soon as possible!

[Crux]

A heavily armed surveillance state, with SWAT guard teams stationed to secure the perimeter and grounds of every public school, is a modest price to pay for the 2nd amendment. That you would suggest forfeiture of the 2nd amendment is a reasonable price to pay for freedom, is for you to say the right to kill each other is not worth it. Just where the fuck did you get such fucked up thinking?

[AlpineK]

I'm all for new security forces like Starsky and Hutch

 

[video:youtube]

 

The A-Team is a good model for a crack security force too.

 

[video:youtube]

[ivan]

schools, nay society in general i say gentlemen, would be far safer if everyone just had a heart-plug implanted in them by the benevolent and sacred state!

 

[rob]

 

 

On mass shootings: I will stick with the fact that most states have background checks but you can get lots on the black market or if a friend or family member provides.

 

Just go to a gun show or classifieds and buy from private seller (not a dealer). No background check required. I have bought six guns this way. God bless America!

[Choada_Boy]

After what happened yesterday, anyone arguing against a legit gun control (and type of gun laws actually working) is a psycho-puke-fuckheaded retard.

 

I am from Montana. Come down and debate with the locals. Don't come unarmed.

 

 

 

Now that I'm off Banination for my poo-poo mouth:

 

My favorite post! Come armed to the debate about gun control because the people with the guns will kill you with their guns! Awesome! I guess the people from Montana are "psycho-puke-fuckheaded retard".

[glassgowkiss]

In the wake of the shooting- NRA American Dream- cop on every street corner and in every school. Sounds like total freedom to me.

[glassgowkiss]

Raid in Kenyan village kills 28 just recently.

 

Syria death toll: 50,000

 

Rwanda deaths by genocide death toll: at least 500,000.

 

It's all terrible but let's just keep things in perspective, remember there is an entire world out there, and we all wish for peace on earth.

 

Good luck.

Yes, this is what is happening if you don't have a functioning government. So all the teabag party bullshit will lead to Somalia at the end. Doesn't sound like fucking american dream to me, more like a nightmare.

 

[G-spotter]

NRA wants armed guards at house fires too?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/24/firefighters-shot-rochester.html?cmp=rss

 

Or is this what happens when you have a house fire in a house with guns inside and the ammo fires off randomly?

[rob]

NRA wants armed guards at house fires too?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/24/firefighters-shot-rochester.html?cmp=rss

 

 

Things like this only happen because America doesn't have enough guns.

[ivan]

fire hoses could certainly be retro-fitted w/ coaxial kalashnikovs

[matt_warfield]

Solution is to give volunteer fire fighters guns along with teachers at all levels, ushers at all movie theaters, and post armed guards at all mall parking lots.

 

Irony is the same people that advocate these approaches fight any higher taxes.

[matt_warfield]

After what happened yesterday, anyone arguing against a legit gun control (and type of gun laws actually working) is a psycho-puke-fuckheaded retard.

 

I am from Montana. Come down and debate with the locals. Don't come unarmed.

 

 

 

Now that I'm off Banination for my poo-poo mouth:

 

My favorite post! Come armed to the debate about gun control because the people with the guns will kill you with their guns! Awesome! I guess the people from Montana are "psycho-puke-fuckheaded retard".

 

I'll let the ranchers and farmers who hunt with guns and ammunition locked in safes know how you feel. They don'e want psycho-puke-fuckheaded retards to change the way they use guns responsibly.

Edited December 25, 2012 by matt_warfield

[glassgowkiss]

After what happened yesterday, anyone arguing against a legit gun control (and type of gun laws actually working) is a psycho-puke-fuckheaded retard.

 

I am from Montana. Come down and debate with the locals. Don't come unarmed.

 

Now that I'm off Banination for my poo-poo mouth:

 

My favorite post! Come armed to the debate about gun control because the people with the guns will kill you with their guns! Awesome! I guess the people from Montana are "psycho-puke-fuckheaded retard".

 

I'll let the ranchers and farmers who hunt with guns and ammunition locked in safes know how you feel. They don'e want psycho-puke-fuckheaded retards to change the way they use guns responsibly.

Responsibly shooting road signs.

[matt_warfield]

Good comment. always a few rednecks around. they prer No Shooting signs. But it is still better signs than people.

 

Merry Christmas.

Edited December 25, 2012 by matt_warfield

[RuMR]

QUESTION: HOW MANY NRA MEMBERS DOES IT TAKE TO CHANGE A LIGHT BULB??

 

 

 

ANSWER: MORE GUNS!!!

[billcoe]

"Speed Limiters, Too?

 

By Eric Peters on 12.28.12 @ 6:07AM

 

From gun control to car control and more.

 

Most people — including people who favor what they call “gun control” — would probably not support the idea of fitting all cars with speed governors. But why? Isn’t the principle exactly the same?

 

A car is a machine that’s capable of being used for “illegal” purposes. It can be used to cause harm, even to kill. Why should anyone be allowed to own a car with more capability than they need?

 

Most people would rise back on their heels and defend their cars. But why not someone else’s gun?

 

Because thoughtless Americans do not discern the commonality of interest — because they have been conditioned to never think in terms of concepts. They have been reduced to a state of bipedal animalism — because they have lost (or never developed) the distinctly human capacity to focus on principles rather than particulars. This, in turn, makes it easy to convince them that a given particular, invariably something of no great interest to them (such as a gun), is “bad” — based on childish arguments that would be washed away in an instant if their brains operated on the conceptual rather than the animal level.

 

If, for example, the argument is that a given item could be used in a harmful way, and for that reason must be banned — it inevitably follows that any potentially harmful item is also in principle subject to being banned. Guns today. Cars tomorrow. Soda pop the day after. Actually, make that yesterday — because it’s already happened. And more will happen — precisely because there’s no reason for it not to happen.

 

But the human cattle out there do not see the principle at issue, so it is easily surrendered by them to people who have much more in mind than merely that particular thing (“bad” guns).

 

The only thing preventing the wholesale banning of literally everything (because almost anything could, in the hands of a malignant person, be used to cause harm) is the subjective feelings of the majority — or rather, whomever controls the levers of organized force and can plausibly claim to be acting in the name of the majority.

 

The concept of rights disappears as the concept of principles slips beneath the waves. Human existence devolves into a high school popularity contest — with all the nasty outcomes of such a contest.

 

At the moment, guns are Not Popular. All the “cool” people are against them. But it’s not really guns they’re against — even though most of them don’t understand this.

 

Yet.

 

If a sufficient number of people can be emotionally hectored into supporting a ban on “bad” guns, then guns will be banned. People who’ve done nothing to warrant it will be transformed by legislative fiat into “criminals” for the non-crime of owning or possessing a “bad” gun. Probably, this will be cheered by a certain segment of the population — the herd animals who see the particular thing they happen not to like — in this case, guns — but cannot see the principle they’ve just surrendered.

 

But the herd will get its comeuppance when the principle swings around and something they do like — such as their cars, for instance — becomes the object of a popularity contest. Perhaps it will be decided that “society” cannot abide too much horsepower. People should not be allowed to own a machine they don’t really need. Perhaps they will find themselves punished for the actions of others — like the soldiers in Full Metal Jacket, who were punished because fat boy ate a jelly donut.

 

It’s not conjecture. It’s not hyperbole. It is inevitable. Because it is logically necessary. One thing follows from the next. Particulars are largely irrelevant.

 

It is principles that matter.

 

This is understood perfectly well by the people at the apex of the pyramid. They are not stupid people. They merely depend on the stupidity — the intellectual animalism — of the thoughtless masses at the base of the pyramid. Get them to accept A — and when the time comes, they will have no choice about accepting B. Because they have already accepted the principle. Which means they no longer have a principled defense. All that remains is the Popularity Contest. They will be allowed to continue driving for only so long as the herd regards driving as within the bounds of acceptability. The moment it is no longer sufficiently liked — that’s the moment after which it will no longer be allowed.

 

 

 

And the same goes for anything — for everything — else. Whatever it may be, whether its enjoyment by you causes any actual harm or not — it will not matter the moment a critical mass of your fellow herd-animals decides, in their bovine manner, that they no longer like whatever it is. That you no longer need whatever it is.

 

And therefore, whatever it is must be banned.

 

That’s where we’re headed.

 

Hell, we’re already there."

[ivan]

no need for a speed governor on my red devil, i'm lucky when she can even get near the speed limit

 

i've no problem w/ cars not being able to drive faster than, say, a 100 mph, as you might need to bust the speed limit to get somebody to the hospital, though faster than 100 would likely just add to the # of folks needing to be taken there - at any rate, there's hardly a constitutional basis for a debate on the right to speed

 

all rights have limits - hardly any sane person would think the 2nd amendment would permit honkies to have anti-tank guns or harpoon missiles, no? so clearly the right comes w/ restrictions, restrictions which, in the founders' time, were happily provided by the limits of then-modern technology (the price and lethality of weapons most importantly) - now that the industrial revolution has fucked those limits all up, it doesn't seem retarded to re-impose them through law.

[rob]

"Speed Limiters, Too?

 

By Eric Peters on 12.28.12 @ 6:07AM

 

From gun control to car control and more.

 

Most people — including people who favor what they call “gun control” — would probably not support the idea of fitting all cars with speed governors. But why? Isn’t the principle exactly the same?

 

A car is a machine that’s capable of being used for “illegal” purposes. It can be used to cause harm, even to kill. Why should anyone be allowed to own a car with more capability than they need?

 

Most people would rise back on their heels and defend their cars. But why not someone else’s gun?

 

Because thoughtless Americans do not discern the commonality of interest — because they have been conditioned to never think in terms of concepts. They have been reduced to a state of bipedal animalism — because they have lost (or never developed) the distinctly human capacity to focus on principles rather than particulars. This, in turn, makes it easy to convince them that a given particular, invariably something of no great interest to them (such as a gun), is “bad” — based on childish arguments that would be washed away in an instant if their brains operated on the conceptual rather than the animal level.

 

If, for example, the argument is that a given item could be used in a harmful way, and for that reason must be banned — it inevitably follows that any potentially harmful item is also in principle subject to being banned. Guns today. Cars tomorrow. Soda pop the day after. Actually, make that yesterday — because it’s already happened. And more will happen — precisely because there’s no reason for it not to happen.

 

But the human cattle out there do not see the principle at issue, so it is easily surrendered by them to people who have much more in mind than merely that particular thing (“bad” guns).

 

The only thing preventing the wholesale banning of literally everything (because almost anything could, in the hands of a malignant person, be used to cause harm) is the subjective feelings of the majority — or rather, whomever controls the levers of organized force and can plausibly claim to be acting in the name of the majority.

 

The concept of rights disappears as the concept of principles slips beneath the waves. Human existence devolves into a high school popularity contest — with all the nasty outcomes of such a contest.

 

At the moment, guns are Not Popular. All the “cool” people are against them. But it’s not really guns they’re against — even though most of them don’t understand this.

 

Yet.

 

If a sufficient number of people can be emotionally hectored into supporting a ban on “bad” guns, then guns will be banned. People who’ve done nothing to warrant it will be transformed by legislative fiat into “criminals” for the non-crime of owning or possessing a “bad” gun. Probably, this will be cheered by a certain segment of the population — the herd animals who see the particular thing they happen not to like — in this case, guns — but cannot see the principle they’ve just surrendered.

 

But the herd will get its comeuppance when the principle swings around and something they do like — such as their cars, for instance — becomes the object of a popularity contest. Perhaps it will be decided that “society” cannot abide too much horsepower. People should not be allowed to own a machine they don’t really need. Perhaps they will find themselves punished for the actions of others — like the soldiers in Full Metal Jacket, who were punished because fat boy ate a jelly donut.

 

It’s not conjecture. It’s not hyperbole. It is inevitable. Because it is logically necessary. One thing follows from the next. Particulars are largely irrelevant.

 

It is principles that matter.

 

This is understood perfectly well by the people at the apex of the pyramid. They are not stupid people. They merely depend on the stupidity — the intellectual animalism — of the thoughtless masses at the base of the pyramid. Get them to accept A — and when the time comes, they will have no choice about accepting B. Because they have already accepted the principle. Which means they no longer have a principled defense. All that remains is the Popularity Contest. They will be allowed to continue driving for only so long as the herd regards driving as within the bounds of acceptability. The moment it is no longer sufficiently liked — that’s the moment after which it will no longer be allowed.

 

 

 

And the same goes for anything — for everything — else. Whatever it may be, whether its enjoyment by you causes any actual harm or not — it will not matter the moment a critical mass of your fellow herd-animals decides, in their bovine manner, that they no longer like whatever it is. That you no longer need whatever it is.

 

And therefore, whatever it is must be banned.

 

That’s where we’re headed.

 

Hell, we’re already there."

 

Lol! This author is such a retard. "most people" blah blah blah "wholesale banning of everything" blah blah blah hyperbole blah blah

 

Nice find, bill

 

Slippery Slope!!!

[yellowlab03]

no need for a speed governor on my red devil, i'm lucky when she can even get near the speed limit

 

i've no problem w/ cars not being able to drive faster than, say, a 100 mph, as you might need to bust the speed limit to get somebody to the hospital, though faster than 100 would likely just add to the # of folks needing to be taken there - at any rate, there's hardly a constitutional basis for a debate on the right to speed

 

all rights have limits - hardly any sane person would think the 2nd amendment would permit honkies to have anti-tank guns or harpoon missiles, no? so clearly the right comes w/ restrictions, restrictions which, in the founders' time, were happily provided by the limits of then-modern technology (the price and lethality of weapons most importantly) - now that the industrial revolution has fucked those limits all up, it doesn't seem retarded to re-impose them through law.

 

With the advent of the internets would you be cool with the 1st amendment being re-looked?

 

Fuck speed limiters, why not make a breathalyzer ignition system standard on all vehicles, no grandfather clause, if you own a vehicle you have to have an ignition system installed.

 

Lets say that all of these guns are made illegal, what is that going to do? How long would it take to get them off of the streets? Would you be cool with the US Gov't going door to door house by house and searching for them? Would you open your doors and let people search your house for the "better good?"

 

And as far as anti-tank weapons and shit like that, if Ted Turner wanted to buy a 105 howitzer and shoot it on his property, what would that hurt? He has so much property that people probably wouldn't even hear it. It's like people owning .50 cal rifles for long distance target shooting. As long as they are doing it on a range in a safe manner, rock on.

 

 

[Jim]

Well, there's a quite a few straw dogs in that narrative. No one is proposing ignition breathlizers - it's simple - there is a drunk driving law, you ignore it and there are consequences.

 

Same thing with level of armament. Some levels of distruction are just too much for any reasonable person - a tank? Yea, the problem arises when Ted turns wacko or "forgets" to secure it and his crazy stepson decides to take it for a spin to chash in on some old middle-school trauma.

 

We have reviewed the Bill of Rights before as society has progressed - so there's no reason to think it's set in concrete.

 

There is a point about the flood of guns already out there. But I don't see it as a reason to do nothing for the future of our kids.

[yellowlab03]

What I am saying about the breathalyzer ignition is that far more people die by drunk driving/drivers than by guns each year. Why is it that no one looks at retooling those laws and making more restrictions? We have a shit ton of gun laws already, most are unenforceable or do absolutely nothing to protect anyone, yet people are constantly wanting more laws.

 

If people want to hurt other people they will find a way, whether that way be a gun, a car, a knife or fertilizer. So what do we do? Do we follow England and restrict firearms, then see a rise in knife attacks and restrict them too?

[ivan]

If people want to hurt other people they will find a way, whether that way be a gun, a car, a knife or fertilizer. So what do we do? Do we follow England and restrict firearms, then see a rise in knife attacks and restrict them too?

i don't think any of the current proposals are intending to prevent all murders, just the high-body count ones - hard to stab to death 60 people in 60 seconds, no?

 

as to your other questions, sure, the 1st amendment continues to be reconsidered in the modern era - wikileaks, for example? the move to make it as hard for the gov to read your email as your regular mail? i don't think there's been as fundamental a change in communication technology as in weapons at any rate. by 1791 you could already communicate an idea w/ pretty much the whole nation, but you couldn't kill everybody in a crowded theater in the time it takes a chimp to come...

 

the breathalyzer for all idea would be interesting to see kicked aroudn by courts - the right to privacy is not clear of course, but judges might say the 4th amendment was being violated by such a broad mandate - not necessarily a bad idea, though it means i probably wouldn't be driving anywhere again

 

rpg's can be had for, uh, what, like 10$ and some food stamps, right? no way in hell those should be legal, right? sure - old boys can improvise themselves if they wanted, but that's no reason to make it legal to buy them at wal-mart, agreed?

[yellowlab03]

Little fun fact: how much additional cost does it take to own an RPG and what additional registration does it take?

 

cost of RPG, plus $200 tax stamp cost filed with a form 4 or form 1 to the BATFE that has two fingerprint cards, two passport photos and the form 1/4 has to be signed off by the chief law enforcement officer for your area. The $200 tax stamp and all of the paper work is also for each round.