I had it pointed out to me

[sr71plt]

Please explain it to me, who is a phony, and why?

I'm glad that we amused you and gave you a smile. You've done the same for us many times, we owed you a smile or two.

He means me. Trysail as a hard on for me.

 

[njlauren]

The people who want the automatic weapons and the armor piercing rounds, are afraid of the government. They are picturing themselves in a pitched battle with the forces of government, and they want to be armed as well as the enemy.

I don't trust the government, do you? If you trust the government than you don't need a gun. When you feel threatened, use your cell phone and call a cop. While you're waiting for them to come to your rescue, you should clean you car or house of anything that might bee illegal.

I would have more trust in Harold having a gun than I do in the cops being the only ones with guns. I think that Rodney King needed a gun. I have had the law show me what they are when they hold all the power.

As far as trusting the government, the american public has paid into SS since before the end of WW2. All that surplus was spent by the government even though they were not allowed to touch it. They stole that money and now they are saying that the SS plan won't work. It won't work because we can't trust the government.

I don't trust the government, and I don't have a gun. I don't think I could win an arms race with the cops, and I know they are willing killers where I am not. But I take a certain amount of comfort in knowing that there are groups out there that are well armed and ready to resist the government. They might give us enough time to get armed and be able to resist.

You guys who want to disarm people of the only weapons that could stand up against the cops. This might be something that we don't want, but by the time we understand what we have done, it will be too late.

There is a line between a healthy distrust in the government and its motives (after all, the founders had that same distrust) and one where you feel you have to arm yourself to protect yourself against the government. The US has succeeded through 200 years, not because citizens were armed, but because we are a nation of laws, as opposed to a thugocracy like Russia or the cesspool that South America has been a lot of the time, and because our laws give citizens rights few other countries do, to change the laws, to change things. The people with the mentality that they are going to fight the government quite honestly are generally lawless types, they are religious nuts like the Branch Davidians, white supremacists and others who see a threat in everything, and I would never put my trust in them, and certainly a lot less trust then I give to the rule of law, because these people are mostly irrational nut jobs with weird agendas. There is an irony to all this anti government attitude, and it shows how glaringly irrational these people are. One the one hand, when you talk about the government, people love to tell stories about how incompetent it can be, spending 500 bucks on a toilet seat, government programs that make no sense, etc, bureaucratic foulups, but then we are supposed to be believe in an evil government acting in lockstep to come after all those people Sarah Palin called "Real Americans", round them up, put them in trains and take them to the next Auschwitz and such......either the government are a bunch of incompetent fuck ups, are they are this master plan of evil, but they cannot be both.

And as far as fighting the government goes, that shows how shows how idiotic people thinking they have the right to such weapons to 'fight the government', the firepower the government has at its disposal, through cops, guard and US military, would overwhelm these clowns in a matter of a couple of hours, I don't care if they have a truckload of AR15's....and thank God the government does, because the ones stockpiling weapons for that fight for the most part are a bunch of loons.

 

[sr71plt]

And as far as fighting the government goes, that shows how shows how idiotic people thinking they have the right to such weapons to 'fight the government', the firepower the government has at its disposal, through cops, guard and US military, would overwhelm these clowns in a matter of a couple of hours, I don't care if they have a truckload of AR15's....and thank God the government does, because the ones stockpiling weapons for that fight for the most part are a bunch of loons.

Not that we have any of those loony types roaming around on this discusion board or anything, of course.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The people who want the automatic weapons and the armor piercing rounds, are afraid of the government. They are picturing themselves in a pitched battle with the forces of government, and they want to be armed as well as the enemy.

They're perfectly entitled to enjoy their "Red Dawn" fantasies in the privacy of their own heads, but I'm not inclined to indulge them at the cost of actual human lives. I have a freshly-minted fantasy where Salma Hayek and I kill zombies together, but you don't see me waving an axe around in the mall.

Given that "the enemy" has armoured vehicles, assault helicopters, and missile-equipped drones, "armed as well as the enemy" has never been on the table.

I don't trust the government, do you? If you trust the government than you don't need a gun. When you feel threatened, use your cell phone and call a cop. While you're waiting for them to come to your rescue, you should clean you car or house of anything that might bee illegal.

I would have more trust in Harold having a gun than I do in the cops being the only ones with guns. I think that Rodney King needed a gun. I have had the law show me what they are when they hold all the power.

Here's an experiment for you: type "NRA" into Google Image Search, and look through the faces you see. Count how many of them are black.

Police thuggery is a problem, but the people most vulnerable to it understand that the gun lobby is not their friend. If Rodney King had tried to use a gun, the cops would have shot him and framed him for attempted murder.

 

[mikey2much]

I am always surprised

I find that the folks here on Lit make up a pretty good cross section of the American public. No matter what subject is thrown into the mix every side has some backers.

You could throw a bible verse out and there would be posters to explain what it meant, and there would be a few to let you know that you were an asshole for not knowing already. For a group of people who write dirty stories and dwell on sex most of the time, there are a lot of self righteous souls.

I am sure that we have a few hard core gun lovers on the boards with us. We seem to have a lot of people who like to see the end of guns in private hands. I think that I fall somewhere in between.

I feel that if the shit ever really hits the fan , The willingness to kill will be more important than what weapon you use. Once you kill one cop or one of the opposing forces then you have a weapon.

I think of myself as an outlaw but of the harmless sort. I am well beyond being a threat to anybody. At sixty six years old I feel that I may have to sit the revolution out, and I have been waiting for it since Kent State. I am not sure I give enough of a fuck to kill anybody these days.

 

[Weird Harold]

Another shooting. . . . and it barely made the headlines nationwide...

http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/35...nman-released-from-jail-hours-before-shooting

Colorado triple murder: Gunman released from jail hours before shooting

Perhaps this story is receiving few headlines because it makes the legal system look ineffective?

Just released on bail for a domestic violence charge suggests the system had a chance to protect innocents and failed. Not exactly the message to promulgate in the midst of anti-gun hysteria generated by Newtown..

 

[sr71plt]

Funny (and not as in "ha, ha") how you spin that, Harold. If they couldn't legally hold the man anymore, they would have to release him, wouldn't they? (Or, like you, he'd be asserting his "consittutional rights" regardless of the good of society, wouldn't he?) And if they leaned on him further in making any effort to protect anyone without legal standing, he, like you, would be screaming about his "constitutional rights," now wouldn't he?

The question raised by the short article cited is not the one you mention, I don't think. It's one of how in the hell did he get hold of a gun so easily and fast after getting out of jail.

But that's not the question you want to entertain, is it?

 

[Exquisition]

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

That old saw applies to mental health as well. I don't care if there are millions of government shrinks on every street corner, unless you force a mentally ill person to go to one they often as not won't do it. Why? Because they're mentally ill and don't realize they need help.

Now we could force anyone who's deemed 'mentally ill' to go to a government shrink, but who's going to make that decision? The mentally ill have rights too; I think that legislation went down when Reagan was POTUS.

Unless we have some sort of mental health Gestapo (an acronym for Geheime Staatspolizei or Secret State Police BTW) keeping watch over everybody, you're going to have wack jobs like this going nutso on occasion.

This whole business about gun control making everybody safer is utter bullshit too. But that's a discussion for another time and anyone who uses this sad incident to whine about that is beneath contempt. (I think some news reader on CNBC tried it and was slapped down.)

Why couldn't you force stringent psych evals on anyone wantiny to own a gun?

 

[Weird Harold]

...how in the hell did he get hold of a gun so easily and fast after getting out of jail.

I should think the answer to that question should be self-evident -- no laws have been changed yet, so guns are still readily available to even felons, mentally unstable, and other undesirables.

If the media wanted to spin the availability of guns in that story, it would be national headlines -- like several other murder/suicides in the few days since Newtown -- it would have been a simple matter.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Perhaps this story is receiving few headlines because it makes the legal system look ineffective?

Just released on bail for a domestic violence charge suggests the system had a chance to protect innocents and failed. Not exactly the message to promulgate in the midst of anti-gun hysteria generated by Newtown..

EXACTLY the message to promulgate. And regardless of the media, it's all over twitter, facebook, the blogosphere.

 

[Weird Harold]

EXACTLY the message to promulgate. And regardless of the media, it's all over twitter, facebook, the blogosphere.

I agree.

The revolving door that is the legal system in the US is as big a problem as guns or drugs -- the story should be big news and not just in the blogosphere.

 

[sr71plt]

I should think the answer to that question should be self-evident -- no laws have been changed yet, so guns are still readily available to even felons, mentally unstable, and other undesirables.

If the media wanted to spin the availability of guns in that story, it would be national headlines -- like several other murder/suicides in the few days since Newtown -- it would have been a simple matter.

No, this explanation doesn't justify the spin you put on the story whatsoever.

The shock of the story continues to be that he could acquire a gun so easily and quickly when he got out. Yes, the laws need to be changed--and perhaps they will despite all of the flak you and gunslingers like you throw up into the air to keep anything from changing.

Isn't it interesting too, how hard-edged conservatives on this issue are crossing over to the light? I'm sure you'll let us know if you can dredge up anyone significant changing to the dark.

 

[PennLady]

Something else to consider -- make guns safer (relatively speaking). But the gun industry doesn't seem too interested. Then again, most industries resist changes to their product, it seems to me.

http://www.slate.com/articles/techn..._make_safer_guns_too_bad_gunmakers_don.2.html

 

[Stella_Omega]

I agree.

The revolving door that is the legal system in the US is as big a problem as guns or drugs -- the story should be big news and not just in the blogosphere.

You probably won't believe me when I say that this election was decided in a large part because of peer to peer discussion via facebook and twitter, wordpress, Salon, tumblr.

But that's where the discussion is happening.

 

[sr71plt]

Here you go, Jack, Obama "doing something":

"Obama to send Congress gun proposals in January" (AP, 19 December)

http://my.earthlink.net/article/pol?guid=20121219/e3fc7c76-9b08-4be0-b774-b2772ab68d99

 

[TE999]

Guess what. When you use the symbol, you're showing amusement.

And you entrap yourself here. By posting that you were baiting a hook (which is lame all by itself), you are admitting that you are toying with the thread.

I don't think anyone has to prove your point--that's what your head rises to for all to see.

You dismissed the killing of 20 kids in a classroom as not as important as your having toy guns to play with. And now you come back to ask if this piddling little topic is still going on. You are a self-possessed asshole.

I'm toying with you, moron, laughing at you,not those poor children, except your bloated ego and lust to be right about every subject that comes down the pike blinds you to it. I doubt if you even know which end of a firearm the slug comes out of.

I sure hope you never get ahold of a firearm, you're too excitable and angry and might go postal in a room full of people if they had the temerity to disagree with you.

 

[sr71plt]

That you've lost your humanity (or perhaps never had it) is really your tragedy, TE999, not mine.

Your pretending that you are playing a game with me is really lame. Only adds to you being a jerk. You just got caught being a flaming asshole and are trying to backpeddle.

(And I'll bet I have more experience with firearms--including in action--than you have. But I don't need to talk about it to prop up my self-esteem and to pretend like I have big balls. I'm betting you've had nothing more dangerous shot off at you than a beer can tab.)

 

[TE999]

That you've lost your humanity (or perhaps never had it) is really your tragedy, TE999, not mine.

Your pretending that you are playing a game with me is really lame. Only adds to you being a jerk.

(And I'll bet I have more experience with firearms--including in action--than you have. But I don't need to talk about it to prop up my self-esteem and to pretend like I have big balls. I'm betting you've had nothing more dangerous shot off at you than a beer can tab.)

I'm sorry, you must have me confused with someone who gives a damn about what you think.

Anyway, you're no fun. You're too damn easy to tick off and your comebacks are lame so I'll stop.

ps: If you don't agree with my opinions on things and they cause you so much upset, feel free to ignore them.

 

[sr71plt]

Who?

 

[njlauren]

Perhaps this story is receiving few headlines because it makes the legal system look ineffective?

Just released on bail for a domestic violence charge suggests the system had a chance to protect innocents and failed. Not exactly the message to promulgate in the midst of anti-gun hysteria generated by Newtown..

Interesting spin, but it sounds like a convicted felon was able to legally purchase a gun somehow, since he had the original box (black market types don't generally sell guns in the original boxes, for any number of reasons)..so want to explain how a conviced felon could walk into a gun store and buy a gun? Could it be maybe a certain gun store owner never checked, or thanks to the NRA, the background check systems often isn't updated all the often?

 

[sr71plt]

Don't hold your breath. He didn't bother to respond when I noted the same thing.

 

[Weird Harold]

Interesting spin, but it sounds like a convicted felon was able to legally purchase a gun somehow,

Unless you've seen a more recent and complete article than I have, there's nothing about his past record to tell whether he was a convicted felon or not. The only information in that original article is the headline and the fact that police could not determine when, where or how he acquired the gun.

since he had the original box (black market types don't generally sell guns in the original boxes, for any number of reasons)..

So you've bought a gun -- or anything else -- on the black market and would know this sort of thing first hand?

I haven't dealt with the black market personally but a saw a "yard sale" the other day that looked like several trucks lost part of their loads in the yard and every item was "new-in-box" and there were a dozen or more examples of every item I saw in passing. Since I doubt that they were collecting sales tax that yard sale was technically "black market" and quite possible disposing of stolen goods. If they can sell boom-boxes, stereos, Blu-ray players, etc illegally in new-in-box condition, what would keep similar operations from selling firearms new-in-box?

so want to explain how a conviced [sic] felon could walk into a gun store and buy a gun? Could it be maybe a certain gun store owner never checked, or thanks to the NRA, the background check systems often isn't updated all the often?

One of the stupidities about current gun law is that information isn't shared between agencies -- specifically with the national database that is supposed to stop felons from purchasing weapons. THAT needs to be fixed/enforced. One of the things that make me resist new gun laws is that I don't expect them to be enforced better than existing laws; let's enforce the laws we do have before adding more ineffective laws to the confusion.

IF the killer was, in fact, a convicted felon, then he broke existing law in "possessing" the gun he used. The law was therefore NOT enforced and THAT is a problem that needs to be fixed. In addition to preventing him from illegally possessing a gun, there is still the problem of a convicted felon being released on bail for a domestic violence charge. It would seem that a previous record, plus a risk of further violence should justify more scrutiny than a routine rubber-stamp setting of bail.

 

[njlauren]

Unless you've seen a more recent and complete article than I have, there's nothing about his past record to tell whether he was a convicted felon or not. The only information in that original article is the headline and the fact that police could not determine when, where or how he acquired the gun.



So you've bought a gun -- or anything else -- on the black market and would know this sort of thing first hand?

I haven't dealt with the black market personally but a saw a "yard sale" the other day that looked like several trucks lost part of their loads in the yard and every item was "new-in-box" and there were a dozen or more examples of every item I saw in passing. Since I doubt that they were collecting sales tax that yard sale was technically "black market" and quite possible disposing of stolen goods. If they can sell boom-boxes, stereos, Blu-ray players, etc illegally in new-in-box condition, what would keep similar operations from selling firearms new-in-box?



One of the stupidities about current gun law is that information isn't shared between agencies -- specifically with the national database that is supposed to stop felons from purchasing weapons. THAT needs to be fixed/enforced. One of the things that make me resist new gun laws is that I don't expect them to be enforced better than existing laws; let's enforce the laws we do have before adding more ineffective laws to the confusion.

IF the killer was, in fact, a convicted felon, then he broke existing law in "possessing" the gun he used. The law was therefore NOT enforced and THAT is a problem that needs to be fixed. In addition to preventing him from illegally possessing a gun, there is still the problem of a convicted felon being released on bail for a domestic violence charge. It would seem that a previous record, plus a risk of further violence should justify more scrutiny than a routine rubber-stamp setting of bail.

I am not going to argue, since I am in fundamental agreement. One of the things you have to keep in mind is how much the gun lobby is behind things like this, the NRA and other lobbyists have fought effective background checks, and there are laws in place that actually stop the information sharing that would stop these kinds of things, there have been riders put on bills by gun state legislators and congressmen to stop this. The idiocy is we leave gun laws up to the states, we allow them to do what they want for the most part, and bills like the Brady bill were so watered down it wasn't even funny. There was an article in today's Times about how the NRA and its lobbyists have effectively shut down real research into guns and violence, into doing serious studies about what would be effective in curtailing gun violence because they know/believe that those studies would show that the most effective way is probably having limits, some of the ones you have talked about, and some others, which includes requiring guns be fully registered and accounted for, limits on how many guns you can buy and own, and in requiring accountability, that if you buy guns and they ultimately end up being used in a crime, that if you didn't follow the law you will be charged.

The irony of our laws are that for example, the federal government forces compliance with things like speed limits by threatening to cut off funding, they force states to implement secured driver's licenses with all kinds of background checks, things like automobile inspections are mandated under federal law, and as I mentioned in another post if you are on navigable waters, states have to register boats, yet with guns, with the nature of them, many states do basically nothing to register or other methods to enforce accountability. In some states, they have deliberate waivers in the civil code that if you are a gun owner and screw up, allow the gun to be used by someone who commits crimes or the like, you cannot be sued in civil court, they indemnify gun owners, which is ridiculous.