another shooting

kickserv

Wrong Forum Mod
Forum Member
May 26, 2002
93,359
2,073
113
51
Canada
Sixfive...just a thought.....maybe make it illegal for a blind person to own a gun.

Could start there.

Just a thought.



Yes you can legally own in gun in some US States (Iowa being one of them) and be totally blind:142smilie





But hey the gun control laws are totally fine:142smilie
 

kickserv

Wrong Forum Mod
Forum Member
May 26, 2002
93,359
2,073
113
51
Canada
Hedge thoughts on the shooting at Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado......


It was staged :shrug: Watch the video. It's a way of control, they want your guns so you can't protect yourself

He was an occupy whack job and a registered democrat :0002 Why is this not being reported? By our suck ass media?




Yep, he went on to say Obama was behind it all it it was all staged......

As I said....Hedge knows his shit.


The shooting in Oregon was another staged shooting which Obama clearly set up.
 

SixFive

bonswa
Forum Member
Mar 12, 2001
18,750
256
83
54
BG, KY, USA
Sixfive...just a thought.....maybe make it illegal for a blind person to own a gun.

Could start there.

Just a thought.



Yes you can legally own in gun in some US States (Iowa being one of them) and be totally blind:142smilie





But hey the gun control laws are totally fine:142smilie

I know a blind guy that deer hunts :shrug:

Saying a person shouldn't own a gun bc they are blind is very descriminatory.
 

kickserv

Wrong Forum Mod
Forum Member
May 26, 2002
93,359
2,073
113
51
Canada
Saying a person shouldn't own a gun bc they are blind is very descriminatory.




user_10498_D4FGSMF6.jpg
 

fatdaddycool

Chi-TownHustler
Forum Member
Mar 26, 2001
13,718
275
83
60
Fort Worth TX usa
I know a blind guy that deer hunts :shrug:

Saying a person shouldn't own a gun bc they are blind is very descriminatory.
Clint,
Are you kidding around or serious?

I'm sorry but there is a ton of evidence worldwide that points to disarming as a viable solution. Who would enforce it? The police of course. There is plenty of law enforcement already on payroll to enforce the laws.

I'm not saying it will eliminate gun violence, just like prohibition didn't eliminate alcohol, but it will help until a permanent solution is devised.

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,228
1,471
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
UPDATE: The New York Post is reporting that the shooter demanded that people state their religion and that he would then shoot anyone in the head who said they were Christians. According to that publication:A woman who claimed to have a grandmother inside a writing class in Snyder Hall, where a portion the massacre unfolded, described the scene in a tweet.

?The shooter was lining people up and asking if they were Christian,? she wrote. ?If they said yes, then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn?t answer, they were shot in the legs. My grandma just got to my house, and she was in the room. She wasn?t shot, but she is very upset.

ROSEBURG, Oregon ? State emergency officials first reported that 7-10 people are dead?with some officials? reports claiming as many as 13?and at least 20 injured in a school shooting situation at a community college. The school, Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, is reported to have approximately 3,000 students enrolled. Officials were careful to clarify that these are initial reports and the figures are still being investigating.

Oregon Governor Kate Brown reported that the shooter was a 20-year-old male. A student who was in one of the targeted classrooms reportedly stated that the shooter was demanding that his intended victims ?stand up and state their religion.? That local report stated:

Kortney Moore, 18, from Rogue River, was in her Writing 115 class in Snyder Hall when one shot came through a window. She saw her teacher get shot in the head. The shooter was inside at that point, and he told people to get on the ground. The shooter was asking people to stand up and state their religion and then started firing away, Moore said. Moore was lying there with people who had been shot.

An emergency official said that the local sheriff was currently leading the investigation, but that federal agents from the BATFE were on scene. The Douglas County Sheriff, John Hanlin, held a press conference providing the public with an update, but provided few details:

Does this post justify something in your mind?
 

Cie

Registered
Forum Member
Apr 30, 2003
22,391
253
0
New Orleans
What is your solution? Disarm the country? Who enforces that? More legislation? More infringement on freedoms?

You act as if this hasn't been accomplished in developed nations across the globe. Who do you think enforces it? Yes, more legislation. Yes, less freedom. More restrictions on gun ownership = less guns = lower gun crime rates. That fucking simple
 

ChrryBlstr

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 11, 2002
7,407
54
48
Hoosier country
Two things:

"For the 40th time this year, the 141st time since the Sandy Hook massacre, a gunman had opened fire in a school."

Surely this number can't be right. 40 THIS YEAR ALONE?!! Are you fucking serious??? And people are still worried about hanging on to their precious guns???

And regardless of the number, for certain individuals to privilege their right to bear arms over the lives of innocents is nothing short of sociopathic, selfish, and evil. Period.

And to rebuff Raymond's (predictably racist) assertion that the gunman was a Muslim....

Umpqua Gunman Chris Harper-Mercer Hated Religion Online

The 26-year-old gunman showed a disdain for organized religion online, then allegedly asked victims about their faith before shooting them.

Police have identified the gunman who killed 10 people at an Umpqua Community College in Oregon on Thursday as Chris Harper-Mercer.

A MySpace account belonging to Christopher Harper-Mercer is registered to Torrance, California. Harper-Mercer and his mother previously lived in Torrance before moving to an apartment in Winchester, Oregon, where neighbors tell The Daily Beast there is a heavy police presence.

An online dating profile, linked to Harper-Mercer?s email address and featuring another photo of him, says the 26-year-old was living with his parents and searching for the ?yin to my yang.? It identifies his views as ?conservative, republican? and lists ?organized religion? as one of his ?dislikes.?

According to a student at Umpqua, Mercer demanded to know his victims? religion before killing them.

The MySpace page features a photo of Harper-Mercer holding a gun and smiling into the camera. The profile includes images of pro-Irish Republican Army propaganda.

Lithium_Love was another online identity linked to Harper-Mercer?s email address. Under this username, he posted on torrent upload sites, sometimes asking people to donate to his email address to support the file-sharing work.

In a blog linked to that identity, Harper-Mercer expressed admiration for Roanoke shooter Vester Flanagan.

People ?like him have nothing left to live for,? Harper-Mercer wrote on Aug. 31. ?On an interesting note, I have noticed that so many people like him are all alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are... A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you?re in the limelight.?

Gary Evans, 62, who was married to Harper-Mercer?s aunt, told The Daily Beast in a phone interview that when Harper-Mercer came into the world, his birth father was not in the picture.

?They were separated when I first met them, and I don?t believe they ever were married,? Evans said.

The father is Caucasion, Evans said, while Harper-Mercer?s mother, Laurel Harper, is African-American.

Laurel was the second-oldest of four sisters and was raised in Torrance, California, in what Evans described as a ?very upper middle class? household. When Evans married Laurel Harper?s sister Maribeth back in 1990, Harper-Mercer?s mom was just starting to become a nurse.

?I know she went from career to career and then settled on nursing,? he said. ?She was working full-time and taking [nursing] classes part-time.?

For a self-identified mixed-race conservative Republican, aren't Muslims the "enemy?"

Ultimately, a sad situation all around.

Peace!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/01/umpqua-gunman-id-d-as-chris-harper-mercer.html
 

buddy

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 21, 2000
10,897
85
0
Pittsburgh, Pa.
American Thinker

April 7, 2013

The Gun Control Paradox
By Daniel Payne

As the new and improved Assault Weapons Ban is debated, it is instructive to study the strange circular logic used by gun control proponents to justify the banning of certain weapons for civilian use.

At the heart of most gun-control efforts is a desire to ban so-called "weapons of war," based upon the premise that such things have no place in civil society.

And perhaps they're right, at least about actual "weapons of war."

There are few people arguing for the legalization of rocket launchers for civilian use, and nobody wants to see people building nuclear weapons as a cottage industry.

So the restriction of some types of weapons seems perfectly reasonable and necessary.

The problems arise when legislators attempt to classify firearms as "weapons of war" when such firearms do not warrant the label in the slightest.

Many legislators and pundits have described rifles such as the AR-15 as a "weapon of war," but of course no competent army would ever outfit its soldiers with such a weapon, which is merely semiautomatic.

Modern armies use rifles that are capable of fully-automatic fire, a feature which is more or less banned for civilian usage.

The United States armed services, for instance, use variants of the M16, a more powerful version of the AR-15.

Thus it is nonsensical to classify a civilian version of a military weapon as "military-style."

Style does not equal substance, and an AR-15 is not substantive in the face of its military cousin.

This fact, however, is what gun-control proponents seize upon when making their case. After all, if the military is armed with M16s, and an AR-15 couldn't possibly hope to compete with the military's armaments, then why does any civilian need the latter firearm, given that it would prove effectively useless against a tyrannical government?

Hence the call to ban these and other weapons on the basis of their inability to protect against tyranny.

Pause to consider that line of thought for a moment: because current civilian weapons are unable to forestall or defeat a tyrannical government, we must ban them.

Doesn't something seem off about this kind of twisted logic?

It's true to state that all the weapons to which modern American civilians have access would very likely be ineffective were the military to truly mobilize against the citizenry. The armed forces have the above-mentioned fully-automatic weapons, along with tanks, grenades, gasses and, most ominously, drones.

Civilians have some semiautomatic rifles and pistols, along with shotguns and revolvers.

Three guesses as to who would win that fight.

And yet it's still nutty to insist that the answer is more restrictions on more types of weapons.

Of course, gun- control advocates are calling for such bans in part to protect civilians from each other -- to stop the next Sandy Hook or Aurora, for instance.

There is both nobility and reason in such a rationale.

Yet when gun rights advocates point out that the Second Amendment was created to protect against tyranny, and that we should thus be cautious in banning the weapons it guarantees us, we are once again treated to a host of claims as to how the Second Amendment is now irrelevant because the government is inarguably more powerful than the citizenry could ever hope to be.

So the argument becomes at once both rational and confusing: we cannot compete against the military, but we can and should strip the populace of many firearms in order to protect ourselves from ourselves.

Say what?

The other side of the coin, however, is equally thorny and problematic: if private citizens are not equipped to take on the modern U.S. military, should we give citizens more armaments -- allow the sale of surface-to-air missiles, say, and make it easier to purchase fully automatic weapons?

The answer is almost certainly no; were these weapons easily accessible to the populace at large, and fell in the wrong hands, the destruction wrought could be catastrophic on a scale no single firearm could create.

So we are left with a great philosophical condrundrum: on the one hand, people shouldn't have access to hyperpowerful weapons with which they could easily kill hundreds or thousands of people, while on the other hand, it seems bizarre to conclude that a people's lack of adequate armaments as a defense against tyranny justifies a further stripping of Second Amendment rights.

While there is no easy answer to this quandary, one thing is clear: we should not be so easily seduced by the strange circular logic of gun control advocates; their crusade creates questions about civilian disarmament that should be answered before any bill is passed.
 

ChrryBlstr

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 11, 2002
7,407
54
48
Hoosier country
Quite possibly the most sobering and lucid thought on the subject....

Retweeted Dan Hodges (@DPJHodges):

In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.

Peace!
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top