WTF Is Going On In This Country?

marine

poker brat
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
3,867
73
48
50
Fort Worth, TX
For those whose argument is the following: reduction of guns/stricter gun laws will not prevent this because people will still be able to get a hold of guns...that is pure speculation.

The only legitimate comparison would be to look at countries with strict gun laws and compare their murder rates. From what I've read the data can be conflicting. The fact remains the only true comparison could be to look at places with strict control laws and evaluate gun usage and compare it to us.

A good analogy is the legalization of marijuana. There are perceived negatives: legalizing it is bad because it will be a gateway drug to other drugs, it will lead to more people driving under the influence, etc....it's all conjecture. Opinion. Want a legitimate way to look at the likely affect of legalization? Look at countries where it's legal (Amsterdam) and see how their population handles it.

I'm not saying that gun control is the answer. I guess what I'm saying is that those who oppose strict gun control laws, their reasons for their opposition are not founded in anything factual. It's pure speculation. What we do have, however, is the ability to look at countries with those laws in place. That's the true litmus.

The challenge with that is you are pulling a single data point out of an entire country's culture and way of life.
Many other countries with lower crime rates also have a much higher population of people in law enforcement and public service, which provides a stronger presence in the communities, which helps combat crime.
And the way to get that higher public service/law enforcement presence is.... higher taxes to fund the costs.

Is it a perfect, directly linear comparison? No.
Is it a factor in the overall comparison? Yes.
 

shbtopdog

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 9, 2006
461
6
0
First off I'd like to offer my prayers to everyone affected by this tragedy, it's truly sickening!
I'm a conservative in a looney liberal state-ny
I dont own a gun but respect the right of those who do. i have no problem banning assault weapons, but anyone blaming this horrific tragedy on the guns and not the despicable pos that committed the act is obviously pushing an agenda.
This wacko needed help and didn't get it. Now 26 innocent people are gone forever. So sad.
I must admit after reading every single post in this thread, I can't help but think Airportis continuously likes to fuel the flames with his curse laden, name calling, everyone is wrong but me attitude. His posts Are pretty symbolic of where we are as a nation, and how politically divided we've become. Also sad.
God bless those who are suffering from the actions of a lunatic serial killer!
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoldenTaint

saint

Go Heels
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
9,501
140
63
Balls Deep
The challenge with that is you are pulling a single data point out of an entire country's culture and way of life.
Many other countries with lower crime rates also have a much higher population of people in law enforcement and public service, which provides a stronger presence in the communities, which helps combat crime.
And the way to get that higher public service/law enforcement presence is.... higher taxes to fund the costs.

Is it a perfect, directly linear comparison? No.
Is it a factor in the overall comparison? Yes.

What is there to lose with restriction? Civil liberty? Give me a break.

What is there to gain? Potential loss of lives.

Which one is more important to you? The sad reality is it's probably the former for most.

Regarding culture and way of life: I'd say that the current culture and way of life are drastically different than they were at the time the authors of our constitution penned the 2nd amendment. Life's not stagnant...it's time to adapt to the current state of affairs in our country.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,518
217
63
Bowling Green Ky
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/12/18/invincible-ignorance-n1468784

Invincible Ignorance

Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of "gun control" advocates?
The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.
If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.
Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.
When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.
The few counter-examples offered by gun control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest talking point is that Britain has stronger gun control laws than the United States and lower murder rates.
But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries-- and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun control laws than the United States. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of that time.
In the middle of the 20th century, you could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked. New York, which at that time had had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, still had several times the gun murder rate of London, as well as several times the London murder rate with other weapons.
Neither guns nor gun control was not the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference.
Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun control laws, on both sides of the Atlantic, have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals.
In Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons in Britain are not put behind bars. The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms.
In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s-- after decades of ever tightening gun ownership restrictions-- there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies.
Gun control zealots' choice of Britain for comparison with the United States has been wholly tendentious, not only because it ignored the history of the two countries, but also because it ignored other countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.
You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.
Guns are not the problem. People are the problem-- including people who are determined to push gun control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts.
There is innocent ignorance and there is invincible, dogmatic and self-righteous ignorance. Every tragic mass shooting seems to bring out examples of both among gun control advocates.
Some years back, there was a professor whose advocacy of gun control led him to produce a "study" that became so discredited that he resigned from his university. This column predicted at the time that this discredited study would continue to be cited by gun control advocates. But I had no idea that this would happen the very next week in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. .

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
my 2 cents..

Hard to compare other counties..Japan has very few homicides period...however we know from Tsunami photo's they also have 0 looting during catastrophe's.

In most cases..the only thing that stops bad people with intent and a gun..

......is a good people with a gun.
 

Dead Money

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 15, 2005
4,350
64
0
Upstairs watching sports on the big TV.
From the history place..

From the history place..

Sunday
I learned about the massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school while we were setting up at Fox News to tape Cavuto on Business. The news was so horrible that we all felt as if we had lost our legs and could no longer stand. It was such horrible news that it simply turned the world upside down.

It still is that kind of news, and it?s incredibly depressing about the nature of humanity. And my wife and I pray all day for the souls of those dear children and for the peace, if there ever will be peace, of their families? and for the souls of the adults and the peace of those who knew and loved them.

As usual, the smartest comment about the whole subject came from John R. Coyne, Jr. ?There is evil in the world. It?s beyond mental illness, beyond gun control. It is evil.?

The killer got his weapons from his mother, who apparently had bought them legally and registered them. That tells us something about what anti-gun laws would do, although maybe the mother should not have had them either. In this world, a killer devil can kill his mother and steal her guns to kill six year olds. That?s what some humans are and I am not sure what laws will stop them.

Second, I read that the killer was socially awkward (putting it mildly) and ?reserved.? I know what that often means. He spent much of his miserable life playing shoot ?em up video games on line or on machines. I see a troubled young man doing that often.

Up close and personal.

In these games, the ?player? just spends his whole day attempting to exercise and exorcize his loneliness and low self-esteem by shooting imaginary creatures and creating damage all day long.

At a certain point, just ?killing? on the console blurs into doing it in real life. ?Killing? is just what the kid does all his life. How much of a stretch is it for him to shoot into a movie theater or a political gathering or a kindergarten in ?real life? if his life is so pitiful that he does not know what?s real and what is not? If you are looking for a villain, try shoot ?em up games.

Third, what motivates ?great? deeds? So that a man?s name will not be forgotten and he will be sung about even after his death, goes the ancient saying. That?s what you get if you slaughter 26 totally innocent people at a grade school. If you want another villain, try the media itself, which has now given Adam Lanza fame beyond what he could have dreamt of. It is impossible to blame the media, but evil men like Adam Lanza have gamed the system to perfection.

Fifth, why are these killers always men? What is it that we teach our young men in this world that makes them think it?s a mark of manliness to kill the unarmed and innocent? Whatever it is, it?s disgusting. It?s not manly to kill any unarmed human. It?s miserable, crawling cowardice.

Finally, a comment that will enrage the beautiful people. The whole world is rightly overwrought and crazed with grief over the murder of twenty totally innocent and blameless souls last Friday in Newtown. It was and is a catastrophe for the ages.

But Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promises to kill every Jew in Israel and then in the whole world, including babies? and he had his defenders, even at the Democratic National Convention. And it was daily life in Nazi-occupied Europe from 1939 to 1941 to kill thousands of Jewish children every day. But powerful, intelligent men and women in this country defended Hitler, spoke up for him and for keeping America from even sending arms to Britain when England stood alone. What are we to make of that? No one even mentions, no one even knows about the horrendous Armenian genocide by the Turks in 1915, when well over a million of the most talented people on the planet were wantonly murdered ? and the world has still not officially called it genocide ? and Hitler explicitly said it was a model for him. Who today even talks of the purposeful mass starvation of millions of beautiful Ukrainian children by Stalin? The U.S. did not say one word about it as a government. The U.S. still will not confront Turkey seriously about the Armenian children.

Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge killed roughly one third of all of its people, including children, from 1974 to about 1977 ? and it was U.S. policy to avoid doing anything to stop them ? because they were opposed to the North Vietnamese Communists and Communist Vietnam, which had just taken over South Vietnam ? our ally. What can we say to that? We cheered the deposing of the President ? Richard Nixon ? who would have stopped the Khmer Rouge from taking power. There is plenty of Cambodian blood on our hands. There is plenty of blood of all kinds on our hands, especially of the most innocent and blameless among us? real babies, truly innocent.

God help us. Man is made of such crooked stuff that it is impossible to set him straight, said a famous philosopher. God help us.
..................................................................

In 1970, Prince Sihanouk was ousted, not by Pol Pot, but due to a U.S.-backed right-wing military coup. An embittered Sihanouk retaliated by joining with Pol Pot, his former enemy, in opposing Cambodia's new military government. That same year, the U.S. invaded Cambodia to expel the North Vietnamese from their border encampments, but instead drove them deeper into Cambodia where they allied themselves with the Khmer Rouge.

From 1969 until 1973, the U.S. intermittently bombed North Vietnamese sanctuaries in eastern Cambodia, killing up to 150,000 Cambodian peasants. As a result, peasants fled the countryside by the hundreds of thousands and settled in Cambodia's capital city, Phnom Penh.

All of these events resulted in economic and military destabilization in Cambodia and a surge of popular support for Pol Pot.


The total carnage in Cambodia under Pol Pot was 2 Million +, substantiated by the infamous "Killing Fields"

Cambodians do not have a perpetually active voice in the news media...

Maybe it is politicians who make war big business who should be silenced.
 

GoldenTaint

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 26, 2009
870
23
0
What is there to lose with restriction?

The ability to defend yourself.

What do you think criminals fear? People with guns. If guns are taken away from the law-abiding, the criminals still have them. And they know the population is open to being preyed on. And there's a crime surge. That's what happened in the UK and in Australia after they banned guns.

And contrary to what your ilk claims on here, you do in fact want to ban all guns, not just this or that class. In UK they now have KNIFE CONTROL. And why not? The same silly arguments apply.

Either we're adults, or we're retarded children who need managers every second of our lives.

You're willing to make yourself a functional slave of your overlords without even giving it a moment's thought.

Why do we need guns? I don't know. Why does the Kenyan? Why does every member of Congress? Why does every cop?

You're willing to accept being a peon and serf who can be ordered about by your betters who know what's good for you and can be trusted.

Most sane adults are not. They recognize authority is corrupt and dangerous, and a gun is your average man's one chance to protect himself against politicians and the evils they inflict on us - Section 8 housing stuck in middle-class neighborhoods being a typical example.

You like to think of yourself as nobly saving lives. What you're actually advocating is making hundreds of millions of people defenseless.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,518
217
63
Bowling Green Ky
In 1970, Prince Sihanouk was ousted, not by Pol Pot, but due to a U.S.-backed right-wing military coup. An embittered Sihanouk retaliated by joining with Pol Pot, his former enemy, in opposing Cambodia's new military government. That same year, the U.S. invaded Cambodia to expel the North Vietnamese from their border encampments, but instead drove them deeper into Cambodia where they allied themselves with the Khmer Rouge.

From 1969 until 1973, the U.S. intermittently bombed North Vietnamese sanctuaries in eastern Cambodia, killing up to 150,000 Cambodian peasants. As a result, peasants fled the countryside by the hundreds of thousands and settled in Cambodia's capital city, Phnom Penh.

All of these events resulted in economic and military destabilization in Cambodia and a surge of popular support for Pol Pot.


The total carnage in Cambodia under Pol Pot was 2 Million +, substantiated by the infamous "Killing Fields"

Cambodians do not have a perpetually active voice in the news media...

Maybe it is politicians who make war big business who should be silenced.

Amazing---I just wrote the only book review I have ever written in my life this morning at amazon on this very topic...

http://www.amazon.com/Into-Cambodia...dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
 

yyz

Under .500
Forum Member
Mar 16, 2000
43,898
2,480
113
On the course!
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/12/18/invincible-ignorance-n1468784

Invincible Ignorance

Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of "gun control" advocates?
The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.
If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.
Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.
When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.
The few counter-examples offered by gun control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest talking point is that Britain has stronger gun control laws than the United States and lower murder rates.
But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries-- and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun control laws than the United States. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of that time.
In the middle of the 20th century, you could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked. New York, which at that time had had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, still had several times the gun murder rate of London, as well as several times the London murder rate with other weapons.
Neither guns nor gun control was not the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference.
Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun control laws, on both sides of the Atlantic, have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals.
In Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons in Britain are not put behind bars. The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms.
In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s-- after decades of ever tightening gun ownership restrictions-- there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies.
Gun control zealots' choice of Britain for comparison with the United States has been wholly tendentious, not only because it ignored the history of the two countries, but also because it ignored other countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.
You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.
Guns are not the problem. People are the problem-- including people who are determined to push gun control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts.
There is innocent ignorance and there is invincible, dogmatic and self-righteous ignorance. Every tragic mass shooting seems to bring out examples of both among gun control advocates.
Some years back, there was a professor whose advocacy of gun control led him to produce a "study" that became so discredited that he resigned from his university. This column predicted at the time that this discredited study would continue to be cited by gun control advocates. But I had no idea that this would happen the very next week in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. .

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
my 2 cents..

Hard to compare other counties..Japan has very few homicides period...however we know from Tsunami photo's they also have 0 looting during catastrophe's.

In most cases..the only thing that stops bad people with intent and a gun..

......is a good people with a gun.



CliffsNotes:

Americans have been selfish assholes for 200 years.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,601
245
63
"the bunker"
However, New York magazine's Gabriel Sherman reported on Monday that top Fox News executives explicitly barred people from discussing the topic. According to Sherman, the edict came from David Clark, the man in charge of weekend coverage, as well as Michael Clemente, the powerful vice president for news, who backed Clark's ruling that it was too soon to talk about guns. "We were expressly forbidden from discussing gun control," one source said.

.
......................................................................

follow the money

utter bullshite..they`ve been talking about gun control since the shooting...



f`ing sheep...:lol:
 

yyz

Under .500
Forum Member
Mar 16, 2000
43,898
2,480
113
On the course!
I'm thoroughly shocked by the amount of people who want armed teachers in schools since this event occurred.

Two weeks ago, almost no one considered this, and now, it's "hue and cry du jour". All you read on the news blogs: "How many kids have to die before we start arming our teachers?" That's crazy!

The fact remains, a massive majority of us will never be confronted with a weapon in our lifetimes, let alone die from it.

Everyone will wring their hands over this tragedy, until the next news worthy story comes along later this week, and then they will make a stance on that issue, and write about that.

Nothing new here.
 

marine

poker brat
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
3,867
73
48
50
Fort Worth, TX
It sort of amuses me that with the bad rap teachers get around here - see past threads about unions of teachers for proof - people suddenly want to put a gun in their hands.
 

GoldenTaint

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 26, 2009
870
23
0
Check out this gem from the same website below. Seriously dude, you are one huge fucking moron.

So...you got your ass kicked in a picking contest by someone you're calling a...moron? What does that make you?

I hope Santa brings you the greatest gift of all. The gift of shame.
 

GoldenTaint

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 26, 2009
870
23
0
we are a violent society

We are not a violent society. There are violent elements within our society. These elements are easily identifiable. But our 'prevailing structure of taboos' prevents our discussing the matter honestly. So instead we blame metal rather than criminals.
 

GoldenTaint

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 26, 2009
870
23
0
Gunsville, USA

by Jim Goad

December 17, 2012

As I lollygagged around the packed convention floor at the Eastman Gun Show in Gainesville, GA amid thousands of guns and what seemed like millions of bullets, it occurred to me that I?ve never heard of a mass shooting at a gun show.

This was on Saturday afternoon, a day after 20-year-old Adam Lanza went on a shooting spree that left twenty-eight dead. Lanza first murdered his mother at home, then drove to a local elementary school and blew away 20 children and six staff members before killing himself. He reportedly used guns that were legally registered to his mother after having been denied an application to obtain a rifle himself earlier in the week due to Connecticut?s relatively strict gun laws.

Before all the blood had time to dry, pro-government zombie toady scribes were shrieking for more ?gun control? and insisting that ?something? must be done NOW. They trotted out the tired meme that the ?gun lobby? is very powerful and has a lot of money behind it?as if the government they dutifully worship doesn?t have far more power and money than the NRA. One went so far as to proclaim that ?no person in the United States Of America should own a gun, unless they?re a police officer or a soldier.? And of course, ?white men? were blamed, albeit by one white man after the next.
?How did they turn from being the harshest critics of ?The Man? in the 1960s to being his most brainwashed advocates today??

Protected on all sides by well-armed Secret Service members, Barack Obama?s eyes grew misty as he proclaimed it was time to ?take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this.? New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg also screamed from behind his posse of armed bodyguards for more gun control. Taking time off from repeatedly authorizing billions in taxes to bomb the shit out of the Middle East, other politicians decried the USA?s ?gun culture.?

The Soros shills at Think Progress, who never seemed to meet a white male they liked nor a government regulation they didn?t like, hastily cobbled together ?A Timeline Of Mass Shootings In The US Since Columbine.?

As always, anyone who writes for George Soros turns out to be?oh, what?s the word??instructive. Much can be learned merely from taking their list of spree killers and digging a little more deeply. In most cases, the following massacres occurred in so-called ?gun-free zones? that gun-control advocates naively thought would help prevent gun violence rather than encourage it:

? An autopsy concluded that Columbine killer Eric Harris had the SSRI antidepressant Fluvoxamine in his bloodstream at the time of his death.

? Jeff Weise, who killed nine people and himself at a Minnesota high school in 2005, was taking increasingly high doses of Prozac at the time of his spree.

? Robert Hawkins, who killed eight people and himself at an Omaha mall in 2007, reportedly ?had been on antidepressants? at the time of his shooting. He allegedly had taken antidepressants since he was six years old.

? Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 and wounded 23 at Virginia Tech in 2007, had been prescribed Prozac and had previously taken Paxil for a year, but he apparently had ceased taking his medication at the time of the shooting.

? Andrew Engeldinger killed five people and himself after being fired from his job in 2012. A police search of his house revealed he?d been prescribed the antidepressants Mirtazapine and Trazodone, as well as the insomnia medication Temazepam.

? Eduardo Sencion, who killed four people and himself with an assault rifle at a Utah IHOP in 2011, was a paranoid schizophrenic whose ?medications were changed? during the summer prior to his attack.

? Robert Kenneth Stewart, who murdered eight people at a North Carolina nursing home in 2009, submitted to a blood test that revealed he had Lexapro, Ambien, Benadryl, and Xanax in his system at the time of his spree.

? Steven Kazmierczak, who killed five people and himself on Valentine?s Day in 2008, had allegedly been prescribed Xanax, Ambien, and Prozac, although according to his girlfriend he had stopped taking Prozac prior to the massacre.

? James Eagan Holmes, who shot up a Colorado movie theater in July, reportedly took 100MG of Vicodin before the shooting. He had also allegedly seen three school psychiatrists prior to his attack. Although his psychiatric records are privileged information, in his mug shot he appears to be medicated up to the eyeballs.

And Adam Lanza, slayer of over two dozen people on Friday, appears to have had a classic pair of Medication Eyes himself. He was also reportedly ?troubled? and possibly ?autistic.? A neighbor of Lanza?s claims he was taking medication.


Maybe those who claim they?re earnestly seeking an answer to Friday?s bloodbath should focus less on Gunsville and more on Pillsville. But right on the heels of their howling about NO GUNS came cries for MORE PSYCHIATRY. I don?t expect these remnants of 1960s ethics to ever blame drugs for anything. But what puzzles me is their newfound blind support of government. How did they turn from being the harshest critics of ?The Man? in the 1960s to being his most brainwashed advocates today?

It?s also mildly amusing/disturbing how closely all the nerdy, medicated, spree-killing geeks resemble the progressive pundits who are caterwauling for unilateral disarmament of the citizenry. They look nothing like the fat and hairy?yet unmistakably male?Georgia hilljacks who milled around the gun show in Gainesville. And although I?m supposed to fear those ?angry white males,? I felt far less hostility emanating from the convention floor than I do whenever I?m around leftist girly-boys.

I stopped at one table to chat with an amiably burly gun dealer. He had a walrus mustache and looked vaguely like a Turkish oil wrestler, but when he opened his mouth and started talking, he was undeniably a Georgia good old boy.

I asked him about Friday?s massacre, and although he prefaced his comments by stating he doesn?t watch the news, he cast his eyes downward and said he heard about the shooting and considered it a genuine tragedy. He said he thinks the main problem is that ?crazy? people are no longer institutionalized because all of a sudden they have ?rights? to live under bridges and be as schizoid as they wanna be.

A full-time farmer and a part-time gun dealer, he added that you don?t need guns to kill people, citing Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, whom he cursed for using a fertilizer bomb and thus making it difficult for him to buy the ammonium nitrate he needs to raise his corn at a profit.

He said he realizes that Friday?s bloodbath will lead to increased calls for disarming the public, although he?s unsure how authorities will be able to pry away an estimated 300 million or so firearms from the public?s hands without taking totalitarian measures. He said he doesn?t want to give up his guns, but neither does he want to get in a shooting match with the government, because ?government IS a gun that?s pointed in your face.?

And that?s probably the most brilliant argument I?ve ever heard against so-called gun control. Government IS a gun. It exists through threat of force far more than via the illusion of consent. I pity all the fools who think that by disarming the public, they?re fighting ?the power,? when they?re only the willing tools of the biggest gang with the biggest guns.

http://takimag.com/article/gunsville_usa_jim_goad/print#ixzz2FULiq4rO
 

GoldenTaint

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 26, 2009
870
23
0
They look nothing like the fat and hairy?yet unmistakably male?Georgia hilljacks who milled around the gun show in Gainesville. And although I?m supposed to fear those ?angry white males,? I felt far less hostility emanating from the convention floor than I do whenever I?m around leftist girly-boys.

For the guy who loses to a "moron" in a brains contest, I'll translate: he means you, Trampled Underfoot. And you too, airportis.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,561
314
83
Victory Lane
I'm thoroughly shocked by the amount of people who want armed teachers in schools since this event occurred.

Two weeks ago, almost no one considered this,
Everyone will wring their hands over this tragedy, until the next news worthy story comes along later this week, and then they will make a stance on that issue, and write about that.

Nothing new here.

...................................................................

in Georgia there have been too many ppl in church services that have been shot by gunman entering the church.

the deacons in most churchs are now armed
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top