Heaven forbid you not own a small arsenal of highly effective potential murder weapons. Why is thought of restricted access or limitations on quantities so terrifying to the NRA?
Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastardIt sure is a good thing that no one in this thread or anywhere on the entire planet wants to ban your guns then.
This is plainly false. There are plenty of people all over the planet who see no reason why this guy should be able to buy the guns he used to kill these people. Or any guns at all. Americans are in embarrassing company regarding the other countries that have views on guns similar to their own.
The people in this country are so ridiculously armed as it stands now, that any attempt to rid the country of guns among civilians would be futile, which is the only reason gun control isn't more important to me (and the only reason previous efforts at gun control legislation haven't put enough of a dent in gun-related crime). But that doesn't mean there are any valid reasons for these or any other guns to be available to anyone who wants them. It also doesn't make it any less absurd to in 2012 base your views on gun ownership on a single sentence written more than 200 years ago based on weaponry available in the late 18th century.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeBan, limit access, restrict quantities, those are very real wants for those who oppose peoples rights to own fire arms.
That was the goal of Fast and Furious. Drum up enough violence and use it as an excuse to introduce gun control laws.
No, it wasn't. Fast and the Furious was set up to get drug dealers. The reason it failed was due to the fact Arizona has shit gun laws that even an unemployed man with $10,000 in cash can get an automatic weapon without a problem. Even when they knew the person was part of the cartel, the DAs and Judges refused to go after them. Arizona really only has themselves to play for all the shit that goes on in their state. That and geography. The reason they have shitty gun laws is do to the NRA and their GOP allies.
(edited by lotjx on 23.7.12 0736) The Wee Baby Sheamus.Twitter: @realjoecarfley its a bit more toned down there. A bit.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeBan, limit access, restrict quantities, those are very real wants for those who oppose peoples rights to own fire arms.
That was the goal of Fast and Furious. Drum up enough violence and use it as an excuse to introduce gun control laws.
No, it wasn't. Fast and the Furious was set up to get drug dealers. The reason it failed was due to the fact Arizona has shit gun laws that even an unemployed man with $10,000 in cash can get an automatic weapon without a problem. Even when they knew the person was part of the cartel, the DAs and Judges refused to go after them. Arizona really only has themselves to play for all the shit that goes on in their state. That and geography. The reason they have shitty gun laws is do to the NRA and their GOP allies.
(edited by lotjx on 23.7.12 0736)
The reason that it failed was that it was a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid idea. The people that organized it couldn't plan their way out of a paper bag. Planting tracking devices on automatic weapons being sold to the drug cartels is a great plan. Doing so with batteries that die within hours of the guns being sold is "Stupid, stupid rat creatures" level stupid.
Thinking that these bozos could have had an ulterior motive related to gun control is beyond ludicrous.
The gun laws are completely beside the point. (When it comes to Fast and Furious.)
Also the plan was hatched during the Bush administration and continued under the Obama administration so Red/Blue politics had very little to do with it. Institutional incompetence had everything to do with it.
In the wake of the shooting, I've seen a bunch of articles discussing the role movies may have played.
One such article was an open letter from Washington Times editorialist Charles Hurt to Christopher Nolan, Sean Penn, and Warner Bros., blaming them (washingtontimes.com)
Well, I got a little bit fired up when I read that, and just had to write my own response (trailer-made.blogspot.com)
And I received a response!:
Originally posted by Charles Hurttell me this, why do so many people get so unspeakably upset over the notion that these smut-peddlers in Hollywood should consider what they produce and think about how the wanton violence preys on sick minds. I mean, are you people so addicted to the constant barrage of violence that the mere thought that the flow might slow down sends you off into a fury? like a bunch of addicts. Is that why you are unable to have a simple debate about whether all this fantasy killing and nihilistic mayhem just might perhaps be a wee bit unhealthy? especially for the young or deranged?
I think my biggest surprise, other than getting a response at all, is the number of grammatical errors from a professional writer. This guy must put his editor through the wringer.
But what do you guys think? Is he nuts? Am I nuts? Do Nolan and others really share some responsibility for what happened?
Write this guy back and agree with him - Easy Rider made you smoke dope, Lenny made you shoot heroin, Mommie Dearest made you hate yer Mother and the slave to Jabba Leia scene from Jedi has made you a chronic masturbater
Or maybe you never know when you are preaching to a deranged mind
Maybe it's just the dude's at fault. He started buying weapons AFTER he failed a test
FLEA
Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high
Originally posted by Nuclear WinterBut what do you guys think?
His grammar's for shit.
Originally posted by Nuclear WinterIs he nuts?
Oh yes.
Originally posted by Nuclear WinterAm I nuts?
Oh no.
Originally posted by Nuclear WinterDo Nolan and others really share some responsibility?
I guess he's picked on Nolan because it happened at a theatre showing a Nolan film. You could always ask if he blames the staff at Dunblane or Columbine or Virginia Tech. for what happened there. I'd much rather you went with RYDER FAKIN's response though for it would be a shame if his rather excellent Leia/masturbatory joke was confined to the realms of The-W.
Now that the Security Council has unanimously(as in Russia, France, and China) passed the resolution, how will opponents of the occupation continue to question its legitimacy. It will obviously happen, just as to how to justify those arguments.