|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Jul 22, 2012 11:12:08 GMT -8
Go to HuffPo or any ouher leftwing site and read the comments. I've read about all of it that I can stomach 101, thanks. A few minutes ago I listened to an interview with Diane Feinstein on Fox News Sunday and the point of view she voiced is that anything not intended for use in hunting should be outlawed, period. She ranted on "assault weapons" in the hands of the public, Chris Wallace correctly pointing out to her that what she termed as "assault weapons" are semi-automatic rifles, not automatics. She ranted on "100 round clips" and ignored the fact pointed out by Senator Johnson that this madman also had teargas grenades (no civilian outside of police is supposed to be able to obtain) and build some sophisticated incendiaries to destroy his apartment with all its evidence. I pointed out in another posting that the criminal element is going to be able to obtain any weapon it wants regardless of the laws. In Holme's case his incindearies appear to have been homemade out of more or less common materials and some at least were hypergolics, mix two or more ingredients and they explode or ignite with no further trigger needed. Gun bans don't work. Period. In Chicago and other cities or states with highly restrictive gun laws what are the firearm related murder rates like? Chicago is vying with Washington DC as the murder capital of the nation. Both have draconian gun laws. The theater where this act of violence took place has rules in line with the laws that permit the owner to restrict access to those carrying weapons. Worked real well, didn't it? There was only one armed individual in the building at the time. In the interview, when the point was brought up that if there had been other armed citizens in that auditorium and that one of them MIGHT have been able to limit the damage that Holmes was doing Feinstein went off, ranting about how many could have been shot in a firefight. Well duh, 12 dead and more than 50 others shot. It could get worse than that if one or two armed citizens who know what they are doing engaged him? It's possible, maybe. But even with body armor Holmes might have been forced to retreat and cut the slaughter short. One might even have gotten lucky and found an opening in the protection Holmes was wearing, his face perhaps and ended the death and destruction right there and then before the toll got as high as it did. Gun control does not fucking work. I watched that interview as well. I agree gun control doesn't work but I didn't like Senator's Johnson's remarks that there simply isn't anything we can do about it. If gun control can't work, I wonder if something else wouldn't help out. I don't know what would work, but I'd like to think people would be looking for a solution, not just saying this is a fact of life we have to live with. -DD |
|
|
|
Post by peterd on Jul 22, 2012 12:43:10 GMT -8
One possible solution, abolish conceal and wear guns in open so everybody can see them. Couple towns in the US done and we never heard that crime went up in their town.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Jul 22, 2012 12:44:23 GMT -8
Here's the exchange between Feinstein, Johnson and Chris Wallace courtesy of Gateway Pundit: www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/senator-feinstein-concealed-carry-laws-would-have-meant-a-firefight-in-the-theater-with-many-killed-huh-12-innocents-were-slaughtered-senator/DD, as to what can be done ... other than making it possible for more responsible citizens to carry I don't know of any easy answers. There are certain risks that we run by living in a society as open as ours including a vulnerability to those who "suddenly" drop into madness. What steps should we take to protect ourselves against that danger that wouldn't restrict the freedoms of our society? Remember Franklin's words: Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither. Perhaps a partial answer lies in increasing freedom, allowing additional responsible citizens to arm themselves. That or increase the police by X10. |
|
|
|
Post by peterd on Jul 22, 2012 14:22:01 GMT -8
If you increase police X10, libs will cry police state.
|
|
|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Jul 23, 2012 3:32:17 GMT -8
Here's the exchange between Feinstein, Johnson and Chris Wallace courtesy of Gateway Pundit: www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/senator-feinstein-concealed-carry-laws-would-have-meant-a-firefight-in-the-theater-with-many-killed-huh-12-innocents-were-slaughtered-senator/DD, as to what can be done ... other than making it possible for more responsible citizens to carry I don't know of any easy answers. There are certain risks that we run by living in a society as open as ours including a vulnerability to those who "suddenly" drop into madness. What steps should we take to protect ourselves against that danger that wouldn't restrict the freedoms of our society? Remember Franklin's words: Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither. Perhaps a partial answer lies in increasing freedom, allowing additional responsible citizens to arm themselves. That or increase the police by X10. There certainly aren't any easy answers and this country and the world for that matter has had to deal with this kind of sudden violence for generations now. I'd just like to hear from our represenatives that this is concerning enough for them to seek some sort of solution for the matter, not that there's nothing which can be done about it as it seemed Senator Johnson stated. On a side note, you may be interested to know one of the victims has been identified as a former Sailor, a CT, who had gotten out but was considering rejoining and going through BUDS, -DD |
|
|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Jul 23, 2012 6:47:44 GMT -8
Remember Franklin's words: Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither.
This is off topic but since you brought up the quote I'll bring this up.
When Anwar al Awlaqi was killed in Yemen I voiced my opinion that regardless what we thought of the man, his killing was unconstitutional. All Americans are given the right to due process, but Awlaqi was denied his solely by the executive department which authorized his killing by classifing him as an imminent national security threat.
I was the only person on this board who voiced this opinion, while others were of the attitude of just saying oh well, and fuck that guy since he was a traitor. I didn't bring up the Franklin quote then because I wanted to try and reason with the folks here without resorting to quotes from founding fathers who could have no idea of the world we live in today. I'll only say if we like the quote enough to use it in our arguments, than lets not ignore it in others just because it's easier that way.
-DD
|
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Jul 23, 2012 7:48:15 GMT -8
If you increase police X10, libs will cry police state. If you increase police by X10, you will HAVE a police state. |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Jul 23, 2012 7:54:18 GMT -8
Al-Alawki was engaged in warfare against the US, regardless of whether or not he picked up a rifle.
If you want to discuss it, please feel free to start another thread in the appropriate forum.
Let's keep this one on topic, OK?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Jul 23, 2012 12:53:56 GMT -8
Al-Alawki was engaged in warfare against the US, regardless of whether or not he picked up a rifle. If you want to discuss it, please feel free to start another thread in the appropriate forum. Let's keep this one on topic, OK? Thanks. We've had that discussion and as I predicted, a lawsuit has not been filed by the ACLU on Awlaqis families behalf. My point in bringing it up in this discussion was to point out how easily we put aside such noble saying when the mood strikes us. -DD |
|
|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Jul 23, 2012 12:56:48 GMT -8
It is interesting that the second amendment debate will continue with this incident being used by the by the left to futher gun control.
The irony of course, will be that the event occured in an area which prohibited firearms.
-DD
|
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Jul 23, 2012 13:12:05 GMT -8
"The irony of course, will be that the event occured in an area which prohibited firearms."
Wait...you mean gun-free zones don't prevent gun crime?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Jul 23, 2012 16:26:32 GMT -8
One possible solution, abolish conceal and wear guns in open so everybody can see them. Couple towns in the US done and we never heard that crime went up in their town. At least 3 states permit open carry. I know Arizona does, Virginia and I think Vermont. Perhaps there are more. |
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Jul 23, 2012 16:39:54 GMT -8
It is interesting that the second amendment debate will continue with this incident being used by the by the left to futher gun control. The irony of course, will be that the event occured in an area which prohibited firearms. -DD According to what I've been hearing nearly every slaughter of this type has occured in a gun free zone. Virginia Tech campus is one such, Columbine School another and so on. The shopping mall shooter several years ago had a gun free zone to hunt in but had the misfortune to run into an off duty (and armed) police officer. Fortunately "gun free" doesn't mean "cop free." The only people who pay attention to the "gun free" designation are the law abiding, criminals by their very nature ... |
|
