Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The NRA Is Now Using Obama's Children In Ad  
User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8438 posts, RR: 1
Posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3459 times:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miSjvg1MH7s

Taken Down.

I don't know what the National Riffle Association is or was thinking or fantasizing about in pawning Obama's children in it's new ad now taken down.

I hope the leadership of the NRA gets investigated by the secret service and their hinds thrown in jail. I hope any gun owner in the NRA with a conscience will leave this bloody organization.

[Edited 2013-01-15 20:00:04]


"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
121 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8438 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3423 times:

Here it is

www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/nra-video-obama_n_2483118.html



"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13508 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3410 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 2707200X (Thread starter):
I hope the leadership of the NRA gets investigated by the secret service and their hinds thrown in jail.

For......?   



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinedragon-wings From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3978 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3404 times:

So the NRA is calling Obama a hyporcrite for having the Secret Service protect his kids? Someone should tell the NRA that the Secret Service has been protecting the Presidents family since the 60's.


Don't give up don't ever give up - Jim Valvano
User currently offlineSkydrol From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 962 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3404 times:

Quoting 2707200X (Thread starter):
I don't know what the National Riffle Association is or was thinking or fantasizing about in pawning Obama's children in it's new ad now taken down.

I hope the leadership of the NRA gets investigated by the secret service and their hinds thrown in jail. I hope any gun owner in the NRA with a conscience will leave this bloody organization.

These are very sick individuals, so this attack reaction should not be a surprise.



✈LD4 ✈



∙ ---{--« ∙ ----{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ---{--« ∙ --{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ----{--« ∙
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5414 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3397 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 2):
For......?

For wanting to bankrupt the country?

Do you realize how much it would cost to provide the level of protection afforded the President and his family and extend that to all the schools in the nation? And remember the NRA is proposing that this all be paid for with public dollars.

That is criminally stupid.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7108 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3384 times:

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 1):

I hope the leadership of the NRA gets investigated by the secret service and their hinds thrown in jail. I hope any gun owner in the NRA with a conscience will leave this bloody organization.

May I please ask you what in the world would they investigate them for???? Really this statement makes you sound like someone who wants the government to control what you eat for breakfast in the morning and what you watch on T.V. If you want the government to arrest people for talking about the President's children then move to North Korea.
I mean really?

I have no problem if you say the add is distasteful or its not fair game to use anyone's kids but jail, investigation? For what??

As for the add. I do find it of bad taste but the add is 100% correct. The first family has 24/7 armed security and for good reason. However those agents are also sitting in the kids school with their loaded guns. Semiauto pistols and automatic machine guns. President Obama should have no problem with this. They should have security however if its ok for the first children to have armed law enforcement in their schools why shouldn't the rest of us.

At the same time it is not a federal issue. If school districts want police or armed security or even armed principals they are allowed to do so. The point it makes Is Obama is not in the right to say armed police in schools is a horrible thing because his children currently have it and I am sure he is glad they do.

Everyone does realize that logically. Not politically, not tastefully but logically the argument makes perfect sense right? His family and all other presidential families have 24/7 armed security. This includes armed personnel in schools. So logically the president really is in no position to tell schools and parents that other armed personnel should not be in their schools too. Logic people.

And no the NRA is not asking for Secret Service Agents in every school. But maybe a police officer, a retired police officer would do. Every school is a bit of a stretch but if a schools district sees it fit and has the money for it I see no reason to be against it. That is the point, pres Obama should not be against it.

Again he has nothing to do with this issue anyway, he does not decide who can't and can have a gun in state run schools.

[Edited 2013-01-15 21:08:47]


"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5414 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3378 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 6):
The point it makes Is Obama is not in the right to say armed police in schools is a horrible thing because his children currently have it and I am sure he is glad they do.

He was perfectly right to say such a thing in response to the NRA's call for armed guards at all schools across the nation. The vast majority of schools are not environments where it is needed or even desired, the fact that a nut job will do something, somewhere, and sometimes at a school is not a reason to call for every school to be armed. That is what he was right in calling out. The NRA was stupid in their statement but they have decided to go all in and so lets see how they do.

Tugg

[Edited 2013-01-15 21:16:22]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineSkydrol From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 962 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3383 times:

Quoting dragon-wings (Reply 3):
So the NRA is calling Obama a hyporcrite for having the Secret Service protect his kids? Someone should tell the NRA that the Secret Service has been protecting the Presidents family since the 60's.

Singling out the Obama family, and ignoring the obvious truth with this type of trashy 'spin' just makes it look like the NRA is desparate to get more commercial time on Fox News.




✈LD4 ✈



∙ ---{--« ∙ ----{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ---{--« ∙ --{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ----{--« ∙
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3368 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 6):
however if its ok for the first children to have armed law enforcement in their schools why shouldn't the rest of us.

If everyone having a gun in a school is trained and checked to the same degree, sure, by all means.

This video is nothing but an attempt to poison the discussion.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6516 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3359 times:

Well even if nobody (except LEO) had guns the secret service would still protect those children with guns. It only takes a knife or a hunting rifle to hit them.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1198 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3325 times:

I wonder who would have the authority to choose those armed guards?

Quoting flymia (Reply 6):
His family and all other presidential families have 24/7 armed security. This includes armed personnel in schools. So logically the president really is in no position to tell schools and parents that other armed personnel should not be in their schools too. Logic people.

That's because his family is way more likely target of terrorism and other violence than your average American family is, nothing logical to put armed guards on every school because of that.

I think any society that needs armed guards in regular schools without family members of the president or similar has something seriously wrong.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21406 posts, RR: 54
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3305 times:

What struck me most is the NRA's apparently prevailing attitude of petulant annoyance about being bothered with the recent carnage at all, as if the mass killing by itself wasn't really something of relevance to them.

The absence of a more than just perfunctory human response that might permit a look beyond their role of mere weapons lobbyists.

But no, instead they drag the President's kids into the spotlight, abusing their protection detail which has nothing to do with them being kids, but only with the job their father is doing, as a political cudgel.

These people clearly have no shame whatsoever.

Nor any sense of proportion.

Nor of compassion.


User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7108 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3292 times:

Too all the responses from my comments I enjoy how you all put words in my statements.

I never said all schools need armed guards or shoulda have armed gaurds. This is not the point. The point is Obama clearly reacted against the NRA statement about armed gaurds. Yet his own family uses them. For good cause of course they should have USSS protection. But to say that is a crazy idea, and idea not meant for schools is a bit hypocritical. It should be up to,schools ands state districts as it is. The video is just giving a different perspective. You have a man telling the country guns in schools is a horrible idea while his own children are protect by semi auto pistols and fully automatic machine guns. Again I think they should have this protection but to say its a horrendous idea to give other children armed protection I'd their schools feels it fit is just not right.

Not a federal issue anyway. So not that important of an issue, so I agree that it is a video trying to cut away from the real problems.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3277 times:

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 8):
NRA is desparate

They're just showing their true colors is all. They suspect President Obama will soon be cutting into their profits by banning certain weapons and they're pissed off about it. So what do they do? They drag two very innocent children into their twisted attempt to attack the President. Nice.


User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6128 posts, RR: 30
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3262 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flymia (Reply 6):
Everyone does realize that logically. Not politically, not tastefully but logically the argument makes perfect sense right? His family and all other presidential families have 24/7 armed security. This includes armed personnel in schools. So logically the president really is in no position to tell schools and parents that other armed personnel should not be in their schools too. Logic people.

The argument makes no logic at all. Fallacious would be the way to put it, because:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 11):
That's because his family is way more likely target of terrorism and other violence than your average American family is, nothing logical to put armed guards on every school because of that.



MGGS
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3171 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 13):
Again I think they should have this protection but to say its a horrendous idea to give other children armed protection I'd their schools feels it fit is just not right.

It's a horrendous idea because it doesn't really solve the root problem. You'll never solve gun violence problems by simply throwing more guns at it. The NRA is just looking for a "quick fix" that keeps the gun manufacturers happy and nothing more.

Quoting flymia (Reply 13):
Not a federal issue anyway. So not that important of an issue, so I agree that it is a video trying to cut away from the real problems.

I agree it's not a federal issue, but the President and NRA are certainly welcome to their opinion.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6568 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 3104 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting L-188 (Reply 17):
Good fir the NRA

So the President should call for every child in the US to have Secret Service Personnel at the expense of the tax payers.

Is that what the NRA wants?

Anything different will make the President a hypocrite - really.

Does the Ryan budget include this expense?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1198 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 3086 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 17):
If Obummer can moleste the memoires of twenty kids and then surround himself with kids in a clear propaganda move as he takes away our cuvil rights then I have no problem with bringing in his kids and the hyprocrocy of their protection

Hah, and you think it's respectful from NRA towards memory of those kids to promote having even more guns around in the US? In the end the clear fact is that big amount of guns is directly linked to big amount of school shootings and other gun violence like that.

Of course typical criminals can get guns no matter restrictions, however majority of school shootings and other acts like that are committed by young mentally ill people with most of the time little to no serious criminal history.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineMSPNWA From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1903 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 3060 times:

Obama and other media members like David Gregory have been hypocritical on this matter. They say the expected lines about being skeptical about armed guards in schools being an effective way to deter shootings, yet their children go to schools with heavy presence from guards--presumably armed. Actions speak louder than words. If they truly believed what they said, they'd pull their kids from such a school. But they know where the truth lies and won't do that. Armed guards are better than no armed guards. So their words mean nothing.

User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7108 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 3055 times:

We are talking about trained police here. You guys who are saying the NRA wants Secret Service at every school don't be so ridiculous you know that's not the point. What they say should happen is more police officers in schools. In Miami-Dade there is a whole separate police dept just for schools. However, most of their patrols are in high schools and some middle schools not elementary schools.

The NRA for the school thing protection thing is not asking for more guns to whoever. They are asking that trained professionals whether it be police officers, or school officials have a weapon. And not every teacher one or two in the school would likely do. It has happened saves children beafore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

I don't see how having police in a school would add more guns to the streets or increase violence.

Again I know this isn't the larger problem of gun violence in the country. I understand that, but its not a bad idea to keep schools safe.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6568 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 3053 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flymia (Reply 21):
We are talking about trained police here. You guys who are saying the NRA wants Secret Service at every school

Because anything less is not what the Obama girls get. Simple.



Step into my office, baby
User currently onlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 3035 times:

That and I am tired of my tax dollars going to seven million dollar vacations for those two brats


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1198 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3018 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 23):
That and I am tired of my tax dollars going to seven million dollar vacations for those two brats

Nah, clearly the only issue to you is that the father of those two brats is not Republican. And that money is nothing compared to all the money US military wastes every year to develop even better methods of killing people abroad instead of concentrating on actual defense. And no, killing religious fundamentalists in countries like Afghanistan isn't going to help US security at all.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5562 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3025 times:

Quoting 2707200X (Thread starter):

I hope the leadership of the NRA gets investigated by the secret service and their hinds thrown in jail.

For exercising their First Amendment right to free speech?


Typical.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21504 posts, RR: 56
Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3072 times:

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 20):
Obama and other media members like David Gregory have been hypocritical on this matter. They say the expected lines about being skeptical about armed guards in schools being an effective way to deter shootings, yet their children go to schools with heavy presence from guards--presumably armed.

Saying that armed guards in schools is not an effective way to deter shootings (which is true) is not the same as saying that armed guards in schools makes those schools more dangerous to be in (which is not necessarily true, depending on the sort of guards you have).

And David Gregory has nothing to do with this. His kids happen to go to the same school as Obama's - were that not the case there wouldn't be the armed guards.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7095 posts, RR: 3
Reply 26, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3064 times:

I fail to see how having an armed guard in every school will stop school shootings. Schools generally cover a large area with multiple buildings, the guard can't be everywhere, the chances of said guard being in the right place at the right time are pretty slim, I'm sure the shooter will most likely have knocked off a few kids before the guard arrives on the scene. The easiest way of stopping a shooter getting onto school property in my opinion is to fence it with razor wire and have only one entry and exit point with a metal detector.

User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 24
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3087 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 21):
I understand that, but its not a bad idea to keep schools safe.

Except it won't. Columbine had an armed officer on duty, it didn't deter the school from being attacked and didn't prevent a slew of people from getting killed. The two shooters in that case who were students at the high school would have known about the security guard being armed, but it didn't stop them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...umbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2707 posts, RR: 8
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3081 times:

Quoting 2707200X (Thread starter):
I hope the leadership of the NRA gets investigated by the secret service and their hinds thrown in jail. I hope any gun owner in the NRA with a conscience will leave this bloody organization.

For what? Or is Obama going to make a Presidential decree limiting their first amendment right's?

Quoting dragon-wings (Reply 3):
So the NRA is calling Obama a hyporcrite for having the Secret Service protect his kids?

Yes they are. And while we are at ti whynot talk about his hypocrisy of not sending his kid's a to public school but ended the school voucher program in DC allowing parent's to send their kid's to better school's . He is the King of Hypocrites.

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 4):
These are very sick individuals, so this attack reaction should not be a surprise.

Please elaborate on what kind of sickness these NRA people have?

Quoting mt99 (Reply 18):
So the President should call for every child in the US to have Secret Service Personnel at the expense of the tax payers.

Well he is calling for the same thing with health care. But now you are worried about a few billion? LOL

Quoting pvjin (Reply 24):
Quoting L-188 (Reply 23):That and I am tired of my tax dollars going to seven million dollar vacations for those two brats
Nah, clearly the only issue to you is that the father of those two brats is not Republican.

No he and his wife's extravagant traveling is the issue. But nice try playing that card.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 24):
of killing people abroad instead of concentrating on actual defense. And no, killing religious fundamentalists in countries like Afghanistan isn't going to help US security at all.

Like Obama killing woman and children with Drone strikes?

Quoting tugger (Reply 5):
For wanting to bankrupt the country?

Do you realize how much it would cost to provide the level of protection afforded the President and his family and extend that to all the schools in the nation? And remember the NRA is proposing that this all be paid for with public dollars.

A little over dramatic.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6568 posts, RR: 6
Reply 29, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3068 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting windy95 (Reply 29):

Well he is calling for the same thing with health care. But now you are worried about a few billion? LOL

Oh - so have made the math.. care to share on how you get to a "few billion" -

In any case - you would be OK with the expense?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2707 posts, RR: 8
Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3058 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 30):
In any case - you would be OK with the expense?

Yes at the local level if your state or county want's it. But nothing funded form the Federal level. Just like health care should be.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6568 posts, RR: 6
Reply 31, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3055 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting windy95 (Reply 31):
Yes at the local level if your state or county want's it. But nothing funded form the Federal level. Just like health care should be.

So your mention of Healthcare had nothing to do with it.. I see..

DO any of the laws proposed prevent local or state governments to implement?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2707 posts, RR: 8
Reply 32, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3054 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 32):
DO any of the laws proposed prevent local or state governments to implement?

I do not think that the States should acknowledge any federal firearm laws.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6568 posts, RR: 6
Reply 33, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3055 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting windy95 (Reply 33):

I do not think that the States should acknowledge any federal firearm laws.

You did not answer my question



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 10
Reply 34, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3059 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 21):
They are asking that trained professionals whether it be police officers, or school officials have a weapon.

No. The NRA's executive VP has specifically called on Congress to act immediately “to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school in this nation.”

Quoting L-188 (Reply 17):
If Obummer

Really? And we're supposed to take anything you say seriously when you resort to such childish name calling?

Quoting L-188 (Reply 23):
for those two brats

And now you're calling two children you've never personally met "brats". Look, you're welcome to your opinion about the President but resorting to name calling and then attacking his 11 and 14 year old children is a new all time low for you. Well done!

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 20):
If they truly believed what they said, they'd pull their kids from such a school. But they know where the truth lies and won't do that. Armed guards are better than no armed guards. So their words mean nothing.

Right. Even if what you're saying is true (how do you know where Gregory's kids go to school?), I am sure David Gregory keeps his kids in a particular school only because there are armed guards present. I am certain the level of education his kids are receiving plays no role in his decision where his kids attend school.   

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 20):
Actions speak louder than words.

Ah, that they do! Let's look at the NRA's Mission Statement and please tell me how their actions support their words. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see it stated anywhere that part of their mission is to release attack ads against the President of The United States and his children.
Established in 1990, the NRA Foundation, Inc., is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that raises tax-deductible contributions in support of a wide range of firearms-related public interest activities of the National Rifle Association of America and other organizations that defend and foster the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans. These activities are designed to promote firearms and hunting safety, to enhance marksmanship skills of those participating in the shooting sports, and to educate the general public about firearms in their historic, technological and artistic context.


User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1198 posts, RR: 3
Reply 35, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3047 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 29):
Like Obama killing woman and children with Drone strikes?

That's only because presidents before him messed everything up through their ignorant foreign politics. At least he hasn't started a war killing huge amount of people like George W Bush did.

"Yes at the local level if your state or county want's it. But nothing funded form the Federal level. Just like health care should be."

Every single citizen of any country should have access to healthcare, I believe that being poor shouldn't make life worth less.

[Edited 2013-01-16 10:28:54]


"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6568 posts, RR: 6
Reply 36, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 3033 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting windy95 (Reply 31):
Yes at the local level if your state or county want's it. But nothing funded form the Federal level. Just like health care should be.

As pointed out bu itsjustme, it looks like you do t not agree with the NRA:

he NRA's executive VP has specifically called on Congress to act immediately “to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school in this nation.”

Shame on you that you don't agree with the NRA.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 10
Reply 37, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 3017 times:

One suggestion I have for the NRA is, before you go calling people hypocrites, perhaps you should look in the mirror. Not too long ago, they went on National TV and, among other things blamed video games for this country's violent behavior (a statement that is ludicrous, by the way). So what do they do? They release a gun-themed video game that is, um, "targeted" at children ages 4 and up. Even more maddening is the fact that one of the weapons depicted in this "violence-causing video game" (words of the NRA) looks a lot like the same type of weapon that was used to mow down 20 six year olds.

User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8438 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 2995 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 17):
Good fir the NRA

If Obummer can moleste the memoires of twenty kids and then surround himself with kids in a clear propaganda move as he takes away our cuvil rights then I have no problem with bringing in his kids and the hyprocrocy of their protection
Quoting L-188 (Reply 23):
That and I am tired of my tax dollars going to seven million dollar vacations for those two brats

This is why I support Obama's gun control laws and the enhanced protection of Obamas children.

If you need a stockpile on assault riffles and a mound of ammo, your friggin crazy, what are you people, David Koresh, Ruby Ridge. Why don't they and many of those GOP members stick to gun safety and away from being Americas #1 advocate of Bushmasters and other semi automatics for stockpiling.

[Edited 2013-01-16 11:32:07]


"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 39, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 2991 times:

Quoting 2707200X (Thread starter):
I don't know what the National Riffle Association is or was thinking or fantasizing about in pawning Obama's children in it's new ad now taken down.

I hope the leadership of the NRA gets investigated by the secret service and their hinds thrown in jail

For what? What crime did they commit? I mean I disagree with their line of thinking and know that the President's kids will obviously be a higher target, but jail time? This isn't Soviet Russia, people can speak out. They did nothing illegal

Quoting Klaus (Reply 12):
The absence of a more than just perfunctory human response

I agree with this. I believe us gun owners are losing the fight because we often come up with some pretty absurd responses. Argue what you think is right, don't come up with crazy ideas just to swing something in your favor

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 14):
They suspect President Obama will soon be cutting into their profits by banning certain weapons and they're pissed off about it.

Well don't forget that the NRA is comprised and supported by millions, most of which could care less about profits of gun stores

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 27):
the chances of said guard being in the right place at the right time are pretty slim

I agree with this too. The NRA's fix to the CT is lacking. I also don't want to live in a country where there are armed guards everywhere, like Egypt (at least before the revolution, not sure what it looks now.) I do support citizens carrying, granted that they are trained adequately. Some people act like being responsible with a gun takes years of meticulous training... no, citizens can be armed and competent too. They often aren't, but training can fix that

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 28):
Except it won't. Columbine had an armed officer on duty, it didn't deter the school from being attacked and didn't prevent a slew of people from getting killed. The two shooters in that case who were students at the high school would have known about the security guard being armed, but it didn't stop them.

To be fair, this incident completely changed how cops react to school shootings. Columbine is a terrible example of most arguments since so much changed. Look at the VA Tech shootings... the cop went straight for the shooter (who killed himself) instead of doing what the Columbine guard did. That being said, I don't think an armed guard at every school will defeat the problem



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6568 posts, RR: 6
Reply 40, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2982 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 40):
Well don't forget that the NRA is comprised and supported by millions, most of which could care less about profits of gun stores

But a handful (gun manufactures, for example) provide most of the funding.



This is prettty telling:

"This program is geared toward your company's corporate interests," the NRA says in an online solicitation to corporate donors titled "The Future of Freedom" and signed by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.

Read more: NRA-millions-annually-4154872.php#ixzz2IAW7lFvv" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article...annually-4154872.php#ixzz2IAW7lFvv



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 41, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2978 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 41):
But a handful (gun manufactures, for example) provide most of the funding.

Yes, and? How is the NRA different from any lobbyist group out there? Again, I don't agree with a lot they do but at least they represent gun owners in addition to the usual big companies (who have the money,) better than Big Oil or Big Pharma that just fights for themselves.

I can see the dislike towards lobbyist and special interest groups, but why the NRA gets so much crap is beyond me. I mean, there are groups I disagree with that I don't completely loathe like some here are doing to the NRA



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6568 posts, RR: 6
Reply 42, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2976 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 42):
Yes, and? How is the NRA different from any lobbyist group out there? A

And? Nothing.. just pointing out that you were wrong when you said:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 40):
Well don't forget that the NRA is comprised and supported by millions, most of which could care less about profits of gun stores

I have not made any value judgement on the fact that it supported by a handful of companies.I am just presenting the facts and correcting your statement.

What you make of these facts - is your choice.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 43, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2968 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 43):

Oh well I think you misunderstood what I originally said. I am not doubting lobbying is a big part of it all, I was just noting that the NRA is not just blowing off the will of the people and going against what 99% of the population thinks... they represent a big chunk of the population and everything they are saying isn't just corporate crap, mixed with it are the voices of millions of Americans



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21504 posts, RR: 56
Reply 44, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2976 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 42):
How is the NRA different from any lobbyist group out there? Again, I don't agree with a lot they do but at least they represent gun owners in addition to the usual big companies (who have the money,)

You're a rational, responsible gun owner; is what the NRA has been doing of late really representing your interests? Because it seems to me like they care far more about making sure that everyone has easy access to firearms, even those who shouldn't, which really helps gun manufacturers more than the average citizen.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineluv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12090 posts, RR: 49
Reply 45, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2971 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 23):
That and I am tired of my tax dollars going to seven million dollar vacations for those two brats

His kids or brats as you want to call them, have been a whole lot less grief then the Bush girls.



You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlineluv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12090 posts, RR: 49
Reply 46, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2966 times:

Also Obama has vacationed far less then Bush did.

http://politic365.com/2012/05/08/oba...president-bush-racked-up-the-most/



You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 47, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2961 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 45):
You're a rational, responsible gun owner; is what the NRA has been doing of late really representing your interests?

No, and I have touched on that. But they do represent my interests to a degree. My point was they aren't just a corporate slave, they do have millions of people's interests in mind



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 10
Reply 48, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2964 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 40):
Well don't forget that the NRA is comprised and supported by millions, most of which could care less about profits of gun stores

Well first, no one other than the NRA knows the true number of members they have. Secondly, George Kollitides, the CEO of the company that manufactures the weapon used in the Newtown killings is an NRA committee member so there is definitely a connection between the NRA brass and gun sales. And while on the topic of Mr. Kollitides, let's look at how he became a board member. In 2009, he ran for the NRA board but lost, even though he was endorsed by Remington. According to a report in the NY Times,"His campaign didn't sit well with some gun bloggers, who viewed him as an industry interloper". Yet, the NRA allows itself to overrule election outcomes and any member of their leadership can appoint board members. That is how Mr. Kollitiedes, the CEO of the company that manufactures Bushmaster rifles, became an NRA board member. Does that sound the least suspect to you? If I were an NRA member, I'd be a little pissed off knowing the organization I support and contribute my hard earned money to feels it can give me a very big "F" you when it comes to respecting my vote.


User currently onlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7095 posts, RR: 3
Reply 49, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2946 times:

Quoting luv2fly (Reply 47):
Also Obama has vacationed far less then Bush did.

It's staggering to think that that turkey spent 1020 days on holiday, you really only had the halfwit in charge for 5 of his 8 years, kinda scary thinking who was in charge for the other 3 years.


User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8438 posts, RR: 1
Reply 50, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2924 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 40):
For what? What crime did they commit? I mean I disagree with their line of thinking and know that the President's kids will obviously be a higher target, but jail time? This isn't Soviet Russia, people can speak out. They did nothing illegal

Alright on EA CO AS Maverick, DeltaMD90 forget jail, overruled on my part on the count of heat of the moment but I find the gun security comparisons malicious. The Obama kids by being the children of a US president need additional protection, how is that hypocritical and elitist that Sasha and Malia need added defenses, should they have less because the NRA hates Obama and people who want any kind of regulation with a passion? I still stand by my other statements on the NRA and the presidents comments that the ad and in my view the organization is repugnant and cowardly. Your gun, your riffle is not going away despite the barrage of lies being said by the NRA, the Guns Over People part of the GOP and other big gun organizations.



"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlinejetmech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2684 posts, RR: 53
Reply 51, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2887 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 17):
can moleste the memoires of twenty kids


Obama is doing something in order to reduce the chances of such an event happening again, whilst the NRA couldn't give a stuff as long as they get to keep their guns. So exactly who is honouring the memory of the children of Sandy Hook, and who is molesting it?

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 16):
You'll never solve gun violence problems by simply throwing more guns at it.
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 27):
I fail to see how having an armed guard in every school will stop school shootings.

There is a very popular channel on Youtube called FPSRussia, which focusses solely on demonstrating the latest and greatest in firearms. Recently, one of the men heavily involved with FPSRussia was shot dead in his office, where he was surrounded by a variety of firearms and ammunition.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/us...srussia-is-shot-to-death.html?_r=0

So we have a situation of the immediate availability of a number of very powerful firearms and ammunition, as well as a person who is presumably more than capable and willing to use then and he still ends up getting shot dead.

Regards JetMech

[Edited 2013-01-16 13:34:57]


JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
User currently offlineroswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 774 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2835 times:

Quoting jetmech (Reply 52):
Obama is doing something in order to reduce the chances of such an event happening again, whilst the NRA couldn't give a stuff as long as they get to keep their guns. So exactly who is honouring the memory of the children of Sandy Hook, and who is molesting it?

And there we disagree. What the President is proposing will not reduce the chances of another Sandy Hook happening as such events are incredibly rare as it is. The President is trying to further a statist agenda of disarming the American public and Sandy Hook is the rallying cry. This whole thing is pure politics. The President, like all human beings, feels for the Newtown families, however, his policy proposals are not solutions to the problem.

I guess per your assertion, the President and his party are 'molesting' the memory of the children.


User currently offlinejetmech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2684 posts, RR: 53
Reply 53, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2815 times:

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 53):
What the President is proposing will not reduce the chances of another Sandy Hook happening as such events are incredibly rare as it is.

Would the proposals of the NRA be more effective in reducing Sandy Hook type events? Gun massacres are unfortunately, far from being rare in the US.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 53):
This whole thing is pure politics.

IIRC, there have been four major gun massacres during Obama's administration, so if it was pure politics and Obama really was chomping at the bit to disarm the American public, why didn't he use any of these earlier events to do so?

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 53):
I guess per your assertion, the President and his party are 'molesting' the memory of the children.

Not at all. If any president, party and event serves as a quintessential example of molestation for political purposes it would be GWB, the GOP and 9/11 - Iraq.

Regards, JetMech



JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
User currently offlineroswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 774 posts, RR: 1
Reply 54, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2800 times:

Quoting jetmech (Reply 54):
IIRC, there have been four major gun massacres during Obama's administration, so if it was pure politics and Obama really was chomping at the bit to disarm the American public, why didn't he use any of these earlier events to do so?

This is easy to answer: because Sandy Hook took place on 12/14/2012 - after the November general election. Gun rights have become the third rail in American politics. Obama did nothing on the earlier three because he did not want to jeopardize his re-election. Obama and his staff have had this anti-gun playbook ready. They just had to wait for the first mass shooting post election. Cynical, yes. Pure politics, yes. True, yes unfortunately.

Quoting jetmech (Reply 54):
Would the proposals of the NRA be more effective in reducing Sandy Hook type events? Gun massacres are unfortunately, far from being rare in the US.

I think more school security makes logical sense. Wishing a school 'gun free' does not make it so unfortunately. Hardening the physical plant of the school and/or having armed security of some sort makes lots of sense. Magazine capacity restrictions and a so called 'assault weapons' ban would do nothing to prevent a Sandy Hook type event. As to the rarity of these events, I would say in the context of the third most populous nation on the globe, yes it is still rare.


User currently offlinesccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5487 posts, RR: 28
Reply 55, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2777 times:

I do not believe it possible that the majority of participants do not understand the message, but I'll grant benefit of doubt out of boundless charity and good-will.

It is disingenuous for the President (or any other public official who benefits from enhanced protective measures) to suggest that the American public, as a whole, should not be entitled to take reasonable and prudent measures to protect themselves and their families, and the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental and inseparable element thereof.

There are many such paradoxes in government.

No, sir, you may not have my gun; and if I don't have one, yet, you may not infringe upon my right to secure one.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlinedragon-wings From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3978 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2776 times:

Well one of the measures in Obama's plan is to provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers. Will that satisfy the NRA?


Don't give up don't ever give up - Jim Valvano
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6568 posts, RR: 6
Reply 57, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2762 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dragon-wings (Reply 57):
Well one of the measures in Obama's plan is to provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers. Will that satisfy the NRA?

It shouldn't. The only thing that should satisfy them is federally funded (ie tax payer funded) secret service level protection for every single child.

And they are on the record..

"He called on Congress to act “immediately” to appropriate “whatever is necessary” to put armed officers in all schools before children return to classes after the holidays.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/12/21...good-guys-with-guns/#ixzz2IBJ2Ybte



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinejetmech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2684 posts, RR: 53
Reply 58, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2755 times:

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 55):
This is easy to answer: because Sandy Hook took place on 12/14/2012 - after the November general election. Gun rights have become the third rail in American politics. Obama did nothing on the earlier three because he did not want to jeopardize his re-election. Obama and his staff have had this anti-gun playbook ready. They just had to wait for the first mass shooting post election. Cynical, yes. Pure politics, yes. True, yes unfortunately.

A fair point you make; however, even without any supposed gun control agenda, there was no guarantee that Obama would be re-elected, so if he really was keen on disarming the American public, why would he risk waiting until the second term that he may not get?

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 55):
Hardening the physical plant of the school and/or having armed security of some sort makes lots of sense.

Possibly. Fortifications however, are a double edged sword, as they could also hamper egress if needed.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 55):
As to the rarity of these events, I would say in the context of the third most populous nation on the globe, yes it is still rare.

Perhaps in the context of all nations, but I'm not so sure if we consider first world industrialised nations only.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 56):
It is disingenuous for the President (or any other public official who benefits from enhanced protective measures) to suggest that the American public, as a whole, should not be entitled to take reasonable and prudent measures to protect themselves and their families,

Do you think Obama and his family may be at more risk of bodily harm compared to the average citizen?

Regards, JetMech



JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
User currently offlineqantas077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5850 posts, RR: 40
Reply 59, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2753 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 23):

So you'd rather your tax dollars go towards more guns in schools? Now if that's not promoting bigger government then I don't know what is...you sure your a republican?



a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 60, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2706 times:

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 49):
Does that sound the least suspect to you?

No it does, but I was never denying politics. I was arguing something else and it got sidetracked, honestly

Quoting jetmech (Reply 52):
So we have a situation of the immediate availability of a number of very powerful firearms and ammunition, as well as a person who is presumably more than capable and willing to use then and he still ends up getting shot dead.

To be fair, no one is saying that having a gun will guarantee you from being shot 100%



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21504 posts, RR: 56
Reply 61, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2701 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 48):
My point was they aren't just a corporate slave, they do have millions of people's interests in mind

Because they happen to align with the interests of the gun industry, yes. Although, as you've pointed out, they don't always align, and in those cases the interests of the gun industry tend to win out.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 56):
It is disingenuous for the President (or any other public official who benefits from enhanced protective measures) to suggest that the American public, as a whole, should not be entitled to take reasonable and prudent measures to protect themselves and their families

"Reasonable and prudent" does not extend to high-capacity magazines.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5414 posts, RR: 8
Reply 62, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2698 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 60):
To be fair, no one is saying that having a gun will guarantee you from being shot 100%

Careful you know what the stat is for being at risk and owning a gun versus not owning a gun....
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...sk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

Tugg

[Edited 2013-01-16 17:08:26]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1342 posts, RR: 3
Reply 63, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2692 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 5):
For wanting to bankrupt the country?

Do you realize how much it would cost to provide the level of protection afforded the President and his family and extend that to all the schools in the nation? And remember the NRA is proposing that this all be paid for with public dollars.

That is criminally stupid.

Actually, they're even worse. They want these guards to be unpaid volunteers.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 12):
These people clearly have no shame whatsoever.

Nor any sense of proportion.

Nor of compassion.

All of that, plus no longterm thinking ability as well. They honestly believe that allowing untrained fanatics access to automatic weapons is a good thing. The disconnect between the NRA and America is breathtaking.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 28):

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 4):
These are very sick individuals, so this attack reaction should not be a surprise.

Please elaborate on what kind of sickness these NRA people have?

You think it's normal to advocate more violence as a "solution" to crime? Seriously windy, that's their entire response to America no longer being ok with assault weapons. "You think you might be under attack, for any reason your crazy little head can dream up? Don't call the cops, become a criminal too!"



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 64, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2675 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 62):
Careful you know what the stat is for being at risk and owning a gun versus not owning a gun....

I don't concern myself with those stats... with proper training, it's impossible to kill yourself or others. My muzzle will never be facing towards anyone so what do I have to fear? You'd be surprised to see how stupid people can be with guns

Edit: that may sound a bit bold or cocky but it is true, it goes back to what I have said before: most "accidental" shootings are really negligent shootings

[Edited 2013-01-16 17:28:29]


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5414 posts, RR: 8
Reply 65, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2663 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 64):
I don't concern myself with those stats... with proper training, it's impossible to kill yourself or others. My muzzle will never be facing towards anyone so what do I have to fear? You'd be surprised to see how stupid people can be with guns

I believe the stat also derives from the fact that if someone means you harm then having a gun near you also means that a gun is near the person that wishes to do you harm when they too are near. And I am certainly not impugning you or anyone else that is intelligent and responsible with their armory. I know that gun owners are often very safety conscious and careful.

Please do not think I am attacking you or anyone else. The stats are simply what they are and tend to reinforce where you and I do agree, that gun ownership does should carry some level of responsibility. And irresponsible people should not have or own a gun really. However the current situation is that pretty much anyone has that right to have a gun and that shall not be infringed except in certain more extreme cases.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 66, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2651 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 65):
Please do not think I am attacking you or anyone else.

I don't  
Quoting tugger (Reply 65):
The stats are simply what they are and tend to reinforce where you and I do agree, that gun ownership does should carry some level of responsibility. And irresponsible people should not have or own a gun really.

I agree and have thought this even before any of these shootings. To me, I feel bad as a gun owner when I see Jim Bob shoot his friend in the face because he thought it was unloaded, or hits someone on accident because they are shooting at something behind the friend (IDK people can get crazy.) I mean obviously I feel bad about the death but also in the fact that Jim Bob makes me as a gun owner look like an incompetent idiot.

I support safety classes at different levels... your single shot .22s will come with an instruction manual, nothing else. But as you get more and more 'deadly' make someone go through more stringent classes/checks whatever. Even if that means I have to go through a class (even after getting firearm training in the Army) so be it. Gun ownership is not threatened, no rights are taken away (except for the right to be armed and ignorant,) and it's not too inconvenient... a few classes maybe



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineroswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 774 posts, RR: 1
Reply 67, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2643 times:

Quoting jetmech (Reply 58):
Perhaps in the context of all nations, but I'm not so sure if we consider first world industrialised nations only.

Look, anything greater than 0 mass shootings is too many. Let me be clear. I just disagree with the President's agenda and proposals for stopping them. There is some common ground most Americans can agree on, however, limiting the rights of law abiding Americans is a non-starter. The mental health reporting and increasing funding for school resource officers are two areas that I think most could support.

Anything involving a firearms registry, magazine capacity restrictions, an 'assault weapons ban' and elimination of private sales/transfer of firearms will be vigorously opposed.


User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 68, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2631 times:

I think the gun toting rednecks have helped destroy what used to be the fiscally conservative party in America. The fact that NRA gun lovers in Indiana and Mississippi have a political home with the GOP, while intelligent non-SUV driving city dwellers who dislike big spenders in Washington are poltically homeless

....is absurd.



Pu


User currently offlineroswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 774 posts, RR: 1
Reply 69, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2610 times:

Quoting Pu (Reply 68):
I think the gun toting rednecks have helped destroy what used to be the fiscally conservative party in America. The fact that NRA gun lovers in Indiana and Mississippi have a political home with the GOP, while intelligent non-SUV driving city dwellers who dislike big spenders in Washington are poltically homeless

....is absurd.



Pu

I didn't realize 'gun toting rednecks' are for big government. In fact, I honestly don't know any 'gun toting rednecks'. I can assure you there are plenty of 'intelligent non-SUV driving city dwellers who dislike big spenders' that are NRA members. They probably can afford to even donate extra to the NRA! Look, I'm not sure if you're comments are satirical or what but when you stereotype you undermine your own argument. Gun owners and NRA members come in all races, sexes, ages, socio-economic backgrounds and even political persuasions.


User currently offlinesccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5487 posts, RR: 28
Reply 70, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2550 times:

Quoting jetmech (Reply 58):
Quoting sccutler (Reply 56):
It is disingenuous for the President (or any other public official who benefits from enhanced protective measures) to suggest that the American public, as a whole, should not be entitled to take reasonable and prudent measures to protect themselves and their families,

Do you think Obama and his family may be at more risk of bodily harm compared to the average citizen?


Absolutely! They are (as every President and family) in a position of great risk without extraordinary protective measures.

But that was never my point, nor (indeed) did I suggest otherwise.

Quoting Mir (Reply 61):

"Reasonable and prudent" does not extend to high-capacity magazines.

Judgment call.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1898 posts, RR: 9
Reply 71, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 2519 times:

Quoting 2707200X (Thread starter):
I hope the leadership of the NRA gets investigated by the secret service and their hinds thrown in jail.

Typical Leftist response: Disagree with something? Throw the person in jail  
Quoting Skydrol (Reply 4):
These are very sick individuals, so this attack reaction should not be a surprise.

Call them whatever you want, but people are voting with their feet. Gun sales are soaring to astronomical levels and NRA membership has swelled by over 250,000 since December.

Quoting Pu (Reply 68):
I think the gun toting rednecks have helped destroy what used to be the fiscally conservative party in America.

Come now Pu, just because one believes in the Second Amendment does not mean they're "gun toting rednecks". Constitutionalism and Original-ism have been hallmarks of the right end of the spectrum for quite some time, it's nothing new or absurd.


User currently offlineAkiestar From Philippines, joined May 2009, 781 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2488 times:

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 67):
Anything involving a firearms registry, magazine capacity restrictions, an 'assault weapons ban' and elimination of private sales/transfer of firearms will be vigorously opposed.

I find this incredulous. I fail to see how the Second Amendment should be taken at such a literal level that essentially we should have no regulation at all, when the regulations being suggested are not even close to being as draconian as what other countries did. For example, Japan has some of the world's strictest gun control (and sword control, mind you, in the same breath) laws, and yet they're doing fine. What makes the U.S. any different?

The common ground that we have is that we advocate peace, yet for some the notion of "keeping the peace" is with the (vaguely-worded) "constitutional right to bear" assault rifles and high-capacity military-grade weaponry. What kind of peace is that?

As far as I see it, gun control is a mix of controlling people who are prone to shooting a gun, as well as limiting access to those who do, while permitting access to those who have legitimate reasons for possessing one. In that regard, I find it very hard to believe that every American should have a right to possess an assault rifle, when most of us will probably never need one anyway.


User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2483 posts, RR: 23
Reply 73, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 2451 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 2707200X (Thread starter):
I hope the leadership of the NRA gets investigated by the secret service

Well, it's the gun-toting Secret Service that protects the President's children now. I think the point is that ALL children deserve the same protection. And I believe the NRA is correct in saying the real root of the problems with all these shootings is mental illness.

So much has changed since I was in school. I never even entertained the thought that someone might do me physical harm other than the occasional fist-fight, some won, some lost. That was "normal" back then.
The "new" "normal" is crazy people doing crazy things and we have to understand those changes have occured and do what we can to protect children. I believe the current statistics are that a child DISSIPEARS every minute somewhere on earth!!!!
That is just sick!

The mentally ill used to be institutionalized if they had "good" insurance. Now those "good" insurance companies don't want to have to pay out----so the mentally ill are put out on the street. Of course, those who have no insurance are already out there walking amongst us. I have known some bi-polar people who rarely take their medication, preffering to self-medicate with pot and/or cocaine. They think they are all right and no longer need their medicine, yet, they continue to do really crazy stuff----and with much drama I might add. It seems they thrive on drama.

A good friend of mine has a brother who is very mentally ill. He thinks he is like super-man and constantly talks crazy stuff about what he thinks he can do----pick up cars and move them around, etc. He doesn't have insurance and depends on the State for his medication----which he rarely takes because HE thinks he is o.k.----it's everybody else that is crazy. If you talk to him he seems completely normal and lucid-----and then he will suddenly start talking crazy stuff.
It's a scary situation. The family has exhausted every effort to get him institutionalized and they have the police reports to prove some of the crazy things this guy has done. With the State going broke there is just no money to take this guy in. So like thousands of others just like him, he continues to walk amongst us.
I wish the FBI would provide the "numbers" on how many "known" mentally ill people are walking amongst us. That would be a real "shocker" to most people who have their heads in the sand.

If I had children in school, I would prefer the school have armed guards.



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 74, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2409 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 32):
I do not think that the States should acknowledge any federal firearm laws.

So they can ignore the second amendment. Is there anything federal they should follow?

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 34):
And now you're calling two children you've never personally met "brats". Look, you're welcome to your opinion about the President but resorting to name calling and then attacking his 11 and 14 year old children is a new all time low for you. Well done!

  
Always name calling, sad. But what can be expected by someone twisting the truth like that.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 39):
Some people act like being responsible with a gun takes years of meticulous training

Who has said years? But it is an important question. How long does it take?

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 52):
What the President is proposing will not reduce the chances of another Sandy Hook

Seems to me you have not read the plan and just deny it on principle. It is far short of what I would like to see but it certainly is better than NRA's suggestion to order more buckets instead of fixing the leaking roof and claim that it will prevent rain from making damage.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 54):
They just had to wait for the first mass shooting post election. Cynical, yes. Pure politics, yes. True, yes unfortunately.

Try last nail in the coffin instead. Even NRA realized it was one too many and provided their "meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again"

Quoting sccutler (Reply 55):
It is disingenuous for the President (or any other public official who benefits from enhanced protective measures) to suggest that the American public, as a whole, should not be entitled to take reasonable and prudent measures to protect themselves and their families, and the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental and inseparable element thereof.

There is nothing in the proposal removing "reasonable and prudent measures to protect themselves and their families"

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 60):
To be fair, no one is saying that having a gun will guarantee you from being shot 100%

This is the biggest irony. Statistics makes it clear that having a gun, or a family member having a gun, makes it more likely you will be shot.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 64):
with proper training, it's impossible to kill yourself or others.

First of all, no matter how much training humans make mistakes. But it is only part of the issue. One other important part is that once two people are facing each other with weapons it is much more likely that one of them will pull a trigger than if only one side has a weapon.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 64):
Edit: that may sound a bit bold or cocky but it is true, it goes back to what I have said before: most "accidental" shootings are really negligent shootings

It is so much more than accidental shootings. It is the escalation of the situation.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 66):
Even if that means I have to go through a class (even after getting firearm training in the Army) so be it.

We all develop bad habits. Doesn't matter how well we were trained and how much we practice.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 67):
Anything involving a firearms registry

Why? Only reason to oppose it is that you do not want to be responsible for what happens with your weapons.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 67):
elimination of private sales/transfer of firearms will be vigorously opposed.

There is no suggestion?

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 71):
Typical Leftist response: Disagree with something? Throw the person in jail

No, trowing people in jail, preferably just for as long as it takes to prepare the execution is the typical rights agenda.

Your comment shows you do not care about reality.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 71):
Call them whatever you want, but people are voting with their feet. Gun sales are soaring to astronomical levels and NRA membership has swelled by over 250,000 since December.

Opposition to NRA and calls for gun control have increased much more. The additional members and "soaring" gun sales is a sign that things are about to change.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 71):
just because one believes in the Second Amendment

Second amendment is the most abused amendment there is.

There is nothing suggested that doesn't go along with the second amendment. As written that is. Not the battle cry version.


User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 10
Reply 75, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2397 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 71):
Typical Leftist response: Disagree with something? Throw the person in jail

He's already said that was an emotional comment so let it go. Geez.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 71):
Gun sales are soaring to astronomical levels

Thanks solely to the scare tactics of the NRA.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 71):
NRA membership has swelled by over 250,000 since December.

That's according to the NRA. No one, other than the NRA leadership knows what their membership count is.

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 73):
And I believe the NRA is correct in saying the real root of the problems with all these shootings is mental illness.

I suggest you re-read the NRA's Executive Director's statement found here. Not once did he attribute the root of the problem being mental illness. According to Mr. La Pierre and the NRA, the problems are: The media, not enough guns in our schools, and the real laugher - video games. I especially like the video game inference because on the one month anniversary of Newtown, the NRA came out with a gun-related video game. One that depicts the same weapon used in the Sandy Hook massacre. Who's being hypocritical?

Quoting Akiestar (Reply 72):
I find this incredulous. I fail to see how the Second Amendment should be taken at such a literal level that essentially we should have no regulation at all, when the regulations being suggested are not even close to being as draconian as what other countries did. For example, Japan has some of the world's strictest gun control (and sword control, mind you, in the same breath) laws, and yet they're doing fine. What makes the U.S. any different?

You're just being silly. The U.S. doesn't care about what's been successful in other countries. We're too all knowing and too egotistical for that. We'll be the fist to go into other countries and force our beliefs and our way of life on them, but when it comes to looking at how other countries have successfully addressed their firearm-related homicide problems, we turn a blind eye because we are much smarter than all of them. If you want to know how smart we are, just ask the families and loved ones of the 12,000 or so people who are killed each year by firearms in the U.S.


User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1898 posts, RR: 9
Reply 76, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2378 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 74):
Your comment shows you do not care about reality.

I could say the same thing about yourself, but then again we're both a little biased.

Quoting cmf (Reply 74):
Opposition to NRA and calls for gun control have increased much more.

Really? If that were truly the case then Congress wouldn't be receiving calls 9:1 against Obama's proposals, nor would some 60% of American youths have, or plan on acquiring fire arms. Again, people are voting with their feet, if NRA opposition and pro-gun control sentiments were really increasing, you wouldn't see the rush to partake in the 2nd Amendment, and these aren't simply spikes in current gun owners purchasing more guns, but rather new gun owners.

Quoting cmf (Reply 74):
The additional members and "soaring" gun sales is a sign that things are about to change.

Perhaps, and if so it's certainly not indicative that people are suddenly embracing gun control and turning against the NRA.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 75):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 71):
Typical Leftist response: Disagree with something? Throw the person in jail

He's already said that was an emotional comment so let it go. Geez.

The fact that it was emotional was obvious, but doesn't excuse the comment.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 75):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 71):
Gun sales are soaring to astronomical levels

Thanks solely to the scare tactics of the NRA.

Again, if that were the case, the spike in sales would be almost solely among current gun owners and NRA members, but it's not.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 75):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 71):
NRA membership has swelled by over 250,000 since December.

That's according to the NRA. No one, other than the NRA leadership knows what their membership count is.

If you have a better source, then by all means...

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 75):
We're too all knowing and too egotistical for that.

  yeah yeah yeah, we're all egotistical megalomaniacs with no concept of what is really good for us, sing a new song, I think we've all heard it before.

It's not a question of egoism and arrogance, it's about liberty, which most believe includes the freedom to bear arms.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 77, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2367 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 76):
I could say the same thing about yourself, but then again we're both a little biased.

Only because you do not care about reality.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 76):
Really? If that were truly the case then Congress wouldn't be receiving calls 9:1 against Obama's proposals, nor would some 60% of American youths have, or plan on acquiring fire arms. Again, people are voting with their feet, if NRA opposition and pro-gun control sentiments were really increasing, you wouldn't see the rush to partake in the 2nd Amendment, and these aren't simply spikes in current gun owners purchasing more guns, but rather new gun owners.

Oh please, learn to use statistics. NRA & CO is extremely vocal and well organized in making their members make calls. Do polls to get the opinion of the nation.

Partake in the second amendment? Pawns seems a better description.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 76):
Perhaps, and if so it's certainly not indicative that people are suddenly embracing gun control and turning against the NRA.

Polls are.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 76):
It's not a question of egoism and arrogance, it's about liberty, which most believe includes the freedom to bear arms.

And most believe include responsibility. Time for everyone to live up to the responsibility part.


User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 10
Reply 78, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2361 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 76):
If you have a better source, then by all means...

A better source? Sure, except the NRA will only say how many members they have. They refuse to release any documentation to support what could conceivably be their embellished membership count.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 76):
the spike in sales would be almost solely among current gun owners and NRA members, but it's not.

Really? Is there reliable data to support this?

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 76):
which most believe includes the freedom to bear arms.

Man, talk about singing a song. Hang on....I have to find that cute little emoticon you used......  No one is saying you don't have the right to bear arms. I challenge you to show me where anyone in this forum has said, "I think we should do away with the Second Amendment and ban ALL guns". I'll be waiting with bated breath for your response.
What we are saying is, there are steps that can be taken to stem the ridiculous number of firearm-related deaths that occur each year in the U.S. all the while, respecting the rights provided by the Second Amendment.


User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8438 posts, RR: 1
Reply 79, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2347 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 71):
Typical Leftist response: Disagree with something? Throw the person in jail

I already recanted the remark. Read the below comments below the title. I wish the same can be said about the NRA ad that uses Sasha and Malia as pawns. And when will those who listen to Rush Limbaugh demand an apology for stating that Obama is using the children around him (those who wrote to him) as human shields to pass gun legislation? I think that was far more offensive than my poorly made statement about throwing some leaders of the NRA in jail.



"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 80, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2336 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 71):
Come now Pu, just because one believes in the Second Amendment does not mean they're "gun toting rednecks". Constitutionalism and Original-ism have been hallmarks of the right end of the spectrum for quite some time, it's nothing new or absurd.

I don't think he's against everyone that has a gun or anything, I think he's just pointing out some of the ridiculousness of some of gun owners' arguments. I very much agree with some of them, but I find others pretty bad...

Quoting Akiestar (Reply 72):
The common ground that we have is that we advocate peace, yet for some the notion of "keeping the peace" is with the (vaguely-worded) "constitutional right to bear" assault rifles and high-capacity military-grade weaponry. What kind of peace is that?

The kind of peace that millions of Americans partake in a year with these weapons. A very tiny drop of assault weapons are ever used in crime, and it seems that most of these users are on anti-depressants. Now yes, we have a very high gun violence rate compared to the rest of the world, but that ain't due to assault weapons, it's a whole other beast!

Quoting Akiestar (Reply 72):
As far as I see it, gun control is a mix of controlling people who are prone to shooting a gun, as well as limiting access to those who do, while permitting access to those who have legitimate reasons for possessing one.

I agree. I think hobby shooting is legitimate, as I said before---the overwhelming majority use them peacefully every year. I think we can put a huge dent in crime without banning anything

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 73):
Well, it's the gun-toting Secret Service that protects the President's children now. I think the point is that ALL children deserve the same protection.

I think it's a dishonest argument because 99.99999% of American kids aren't in danger from assassination from being the POTUS' kids. Leaving out that obvious reason makes me very skeptical of the NRA attack ad. If they had just argued for armed guards at every school it would be one thing

Quoting cmf (Reply 74):
Who has said years? But it is an important question. How long does it take?

Hyperbole. Some are making it sound as if you basically need to be a cop to be safe with a firearm. And I don't know, longer than simply going to the store and buying one which you can do in many states

Quoting cmf (Reply 74):
This is the biggest irony. Statistics makes it clear that having a gun, or a family member having a gun, makes it more likely you will be shot.

Well if you shoot at anything in the dark and leave it laying around loaded, then of course that will happen. I don't do that or plan on doing that so I feel pretty good about the odds

Quoting cmf (Reply 74):
First of all, no matter how much training humans make mistakes. But it is only part of the issue. One other important part is that once two people are facing each other with weapons it is much more likely that one of them will pull a trigger than if only one side has a weapon.

Look at the post in the other thread regarding mistakes. I think the biggest thing I learned in any training I received (which should be the golden rule of carrying) is ***Just because you have a weapon doesn't mean you should use it!!!!!!!*** Escalation training is taught by police and should be included in any civilian training

Quoting cmf (Reply 74):
It is so much more than accidental shootings. It is the escalation of the situation.

See above, but I agree with you.

Quoting cmf (Reply 74):
We all develop bad habits. Doesn't matter how well we were trained and how much we practice.

Bad habits do not include flagging, keeping your finger on the trigger, etc. These are much more than bad habits, these actions are negligence and you shouldn't own a gun if you continuously have a 'bad habit' of doing this

Quoting cmf (Reply 77):
Polls are.

Again, be careful with polls my friend. "Do you support more restrictions on firearms?" What if someone now answers yes because they want more background checks? What if someone counts that vote and argues for an assault weapon ban, citing the % of people wanting "more restrictions on firearms?" See how stats can be deceiving?

If someone asked me if I was for limitations on high capacity mags and assault weapons, I'd say yes! That doesn't mean I want blanket bans though



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1898 posts, RR: 9
Reply 81, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2335 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 77):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 76):
I could say the same thing about yourself, but then again we're both a little biased.

Only because you do not care about reality.

Likewise my friend.

Quoting cmf (Reply 77):
Oh please, learn to use statistics. NRA & CO is extremely vocal and well organized in making their members make calls. Do polls to get the opinion of the nation.

And so is the Left (isn't the Obama for America campaign still active?), what's your point? I know the Left always love to convey the narrative that they're the little guy standing up against the big corporate/lobbyist giants, despite the fact that they're often better funded by these same corporations and special interests than their opponents and much better organized. The NRA is well-organized to be sure, but so is the Left, so that argument's moot IMO.

Quoting cmf (Reply 77):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 76):
Perhaps, and if so it's certainly not indicative that people are suddenly embracing gun control and turning against the NRA.

Polls are.

Which ones?

Quoting cmf (Reply 77):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 76):
It's not a question of egoism and arrogance, it's about liberty, which most believe includes the freedom to bear arms.

And most believe include responsibility. Time for everyone to live up to the responsibility part.

Which includes looking at the people who are the ones pulling the trigger instead of solely focusing on the weapon.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 78):

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 76):
the spike in sales would be almost solely among current gun owners and NRA members, but it's not.

Really? Is there reliable data to support this?

Absolutely as, contrary to popular belief, I haven't been to a single gun show where background checks WEREN'T a requirement so, oddly enough, it's government data which has made this claim.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 78):
No one is saying you don't have the right to bear arms. I challenge you to show me where anyone in this forum has said, "I think we should do away with the Second Amendment and ban ALL guns".

Not in this thread that I've seen, but I can't tell you how many threads I've read here about gun control and gun rights where I've seen posters, either here in the US or abroad, discuss how the US should ban private firearms or that they would be perfectly comfortable with the 2nd Amendment being scrapped or convey their very uninformed opinions on "how in the world anyone could interpret the 2nd Amendment as meaning private citizens have the right to bear arms", it's not an uncommon sentiment at all.

[Edited 2013-01-17 11:59:18]

User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8397 posts, RR: 3
Reply 82, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2314 times:

So because law enforcement officials have guns, every idiot and freak should have a gun? Mrs. Lanza included? I fail to see the logic.

User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 10
Reply 83, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2307 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 80):
Escalation training is taught by police and should be included in any civilian training

I believe you're referring to "Force Continuum". However, it may not be seen as being applicable in the civilian world. For example, level one of the force continuum is the officer's presence. Often, just the arrival of a unformed officer will thwart or squelch an act of violence (often just hearing the sirens of approaching law enforcement will be enough). That, of course doesn't apply to a civilian. Also, unlike police officers, most civilians don't carry several levels of non lethal weaponry (pepper spray, taser, etc...). Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that, just because you have a firearm doesn't mean you have to use it. More often than not, making a 9-1-1 call and being a very good eye witness are the best decisions.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 81):
Really? Is there reliable data to support this?

Absolutely as, contrary to popular belief, I haven't been to a single gun show where background checks WEREN'T a requirement so, oddly enough, it's government data which has made this claim.

And I can find this data that supports your statement that the recent escalation in gun sales have been by non NRA members and non gun owners where?

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 81):
Not in this thread that I've seen, but I can't tell you how many threads I've read here about gun control and gun rights where I've seen posters, either here in the US or abroad, discuss how the US should ban private firearms or that they would be perfectly comfortable with the 2nd Amendment being scrapped or convey their very uninformed opinions on "how in the world anyone could interpret the 2nd Amendment as meaning private citizens have the right to bear arms", it's not an uncommon sentiment at all.

Might I suggest we limit our debates about this thread to opinions expressed in this thread?


User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 84, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2279 times:

While I don't agree with the NRA ad (I've seen it several times) and think it was not in good taste, politicians, who are often purveyors of poor taste, have been using children as props to influence public opinion seemingly forever. And without shame.

One could also argue that Obama was using those surviving children as props for his gun control signings. I might sound insensitive, but think about it. I watched the signings affair live, start to finish, and the first thing that came to mind when I saw the children was "What's he got those poor kids up front for?" regards...jack



all best; jack
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 85, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2272 times:

I think the whole President Obama using children thing is way overblown. Who cares? It's a political ploy, very cheesy IMO but I don't see them as pawns or President Obama being a Socialist Warlord. Can't we debate this without the stupid asides?


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1898 posts, RR: 9
Reply 86, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2261 times:

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 84):
While I don't agree with the NRA ad (I've seen it several times) and think it was not in good taste, politicians, who are often purveyors of poor taste, have been using children as props to influence public opinion seemingly forever. And without shame.

One could also argue that Obama was using those surviving children as props for his gun control signings. I might sound insensitive, but think about it. I watched the signings affair live, start to finish, and the first thing that came to mind when I saw the children was "What's he got those poor kids up front for?" regards...jack

  

This pretty much describes why I couldn't care less about this NRA ad. I could certainly agree that it's not in the best taste, but outraged? I just can't quite get that angry when a private organization does this with their own money when politicians usually pull similarly tasteless charades at tax payer expense at much greater frequency.


Quoting 2707200X (Reply 79):
Read the below comments below the title. I wish the same can be said about the NRA ad that uses Sasha and Malia as pawns.

And those children that Obama surrounded himself with yesterday WEREN'T pawns?

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 79):
And when will those who listen to Rush Limbaugh demand an apology for stating that Obama is using the children around him (those who wrote to him) as human shields to pass gun legislation?

They most likely won't because they probably largely agree with the remark. Politicians surrounding themselves with children is an age-old hack political tactic. You can't call out the NRA for using Sasha and Malia as innocent pawns and then completely gloss over Obama's similar exploitation of innocent children (yes, I know they wrote to him, but at their young age, what child's mind is complex enough to think beyond the fact that they get to miss school, get a trip to DC and meet the President?)

Frankly I'm tired of politicians constantly injecting such emotions into political debates (using children for photo-ops and political props, putting names to legislation...i.e. Jessie's Law/Caylee's Law). It isn't healthy or fair when you position the opposition to be the villains "against the children" instead of having open discourse and debate over the matter, it's a shameless tactic that I'm sick of and both sides are guilty of it.


User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 87, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2249 times:

DeltaMD90 (Rep85); if you were referring to my post (Rep 84), you have written the words "pawns" and not seeing "President Obama being a Socialist Warlord." Not me.

As far as a debate without "stupid asides", I was only expressing my opinion based on my observations. Furthermore, speaking of asides, I don't think the topic has even been addressed in over 10 or more replies (except mine). Thank you...jack



all best; jack
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 10
Reply 88, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2248 times:

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 84):
One could also argue that Obama was using those surviving children as props for his gun control signings

The kids weren't "props". Each one had written a letter to President Obama after the Sandy Hook shootings asking him to do something.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 89, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2239 times:

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 87):
if you were referring to my post

I'm not pointing out anyone, I just think the whole premise of it is dumb. Doesn't mean I think those who talk about it is dumb, feel free to think what you want, I respect your opinion. I just so happen to see the argument as trivial and detracting from the main argument

Edit: I also am not on A.net 24/7 so when I come back to a thread, it often has 20 replies so I hit everything I want to talk about even if the argument is a few hours old. A lot of discussions happen while people are at work or sleeping

[Edited 2013-01-17 16:12:04]


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13029 posts, RR: 12
Reply 90, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2201 times:

I bet almost all of the executive staff of the NRA sends their kids, if they have K-12 aged ones or when they were that age, to private or religious schools or public schools in better income, near all-white districts with little risk of violence by guns. I doubt few of those schools have armed guards.

Many urban high schools have armed guards or full police officers in or near them, metal detectors, ban all cell/smart phones and for good and well established reasons - the use of guns (and other weapons) by criminal gangs. The need for every school to have full time armed guards or police outside of communities where proven risks for weapons is not a wise use of money. What happened in Newtown, CT is so rare, the NRA's proposals are just worthless. Better would be to spend money on proven security systems, unarmed security, limited access to inside schools buildings, safer/stronger doors and locks, 'panic buttons' in classrooms, stricter policies of access of parents to their kids or those that try to claim their kids.

Further would be to deal better with bullying and harassment of students to each other, to have tight tolerance of it in school, as often a trigger for violence in our schools by students.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8397 posts, RR: 3
Reply 91, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2199 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 85):
I think the whole President Obama using children thing is way overblown. Who cares? It's a political ploy, very cheesy IMO but I don't see them as pawns or President Obama being a Socialist Warlord. Can't we debate this without the stupid asides?

Children are people too. They should be included in politics more often. Particularly when we talk about our long term budget problems. The children should be beating Congresspeople with sticks.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 90):
if they have K-12 aged ones or when they were that age, to private or religious schools or public schools in better income, near all-white districts with little risk of violence by guns.

Ironically, of course, the change in gun laws is supposed to focus on those rich districts where white collar massacre perpetrators are. Low income, minority people are not the ones doing massacres.

They are different problems.


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2707 posts, RR: 8
Reply 92, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2130 times:

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 88):
The kids weren't "props". Each one had written a letter to President Obama after the Sandy Hook shootings asking him to do something.

Yes they are props...How many kids who write letter's to the President about their mother's not aborting them does he trot out in front of him? It was disgusting act that Goebels, Stalin and Mao would of been proud of.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 90):
I bet almost all of the executive staff of the NRA sends their kids, if they have K-12 aged ones or when they were that age, to private or religious schools or public schools in better income, near all-white districts with little risk of violence by guns. I doubt few of those schools have armed guards.

Is their a point to this?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 91):
They should be included in politics more often. Particularly when we talk about our long term budget problems

We will not see Obummer trotting out any of those letter's either.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 91):
Low income, minority people are not the ones doing massacres.

No they are just doing it on a mass scale one or two at a time.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11520 posts, RR: 15
Reply 93, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2124 times:

So, when the Bush girls ran around drunk tearing up a hotel in Argentina, Secret Service was there. Now, the right-wing is saying Secret Service should not have been there. I say: Fine. Let the Argentine authorities deal with them.


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 94, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2120 times:

Here's an interesting take on the NRA:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...sm_domestic_violence_and_drug.html

Now, since I'm Canadian and don't directly have a dog in this hunt, you can be free to ignore me. I'm sure many will. But the NRA does have influence in the Canadian gun debate and therefore I try to follow what's happening on this file in the US. But it's hard to listen when everyone is shouting.

For anyone interested, there is no equivalent to the 2nd Amendment in the Canadian Constitution, in fact no reference to guns at all.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 10
Reply 95, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2110 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 64):

I don't concern myself with those stats... with proper training, it's impossible to kill yourself or others

Careful when you use such a sweeping word as "impossible". Granted, in these two examples, death didn't occur. However, due to the recklessness of these two law enforcement officers who had proper training (the latter being a firearms instructor), it certainly could have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7ufT_6Kgy0

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/1...ended-handgun-in-student-bathroom/

The anti "armed security in our schools" folks are going to have a hay day with Lapeer MI incident.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 96, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2097 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 80):
Hyperbole. Some are making it sound as if you basically need to be a cop to be safe with a firearm. And I don't know, longer than simply going to the store and buying one which you can do in many states

Hyperbole?

Again, I don't remember anyone suggesting years, but I have repeatedly said that the few hours of training required today isn't enough. I do not have an answer as to how long it takes. I think it is differs a lot from person to person. But what I would like to see if that you would only get a practice license in the beginning. Essentially that you can only use it at ranges until you have proven you can handle it. I would like to see some kind of test but I have no idea how such a test can be made.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 80):
Well if you shoot at anything in the dark and leave it laying around loaded, then of course that will happen. I don't do that or plan on doing that so I feel pretty good about the odds

That isn't enough to explain the statistics. I do not think those who use weapons at the range and for hunting is much of this statistics. I do think a lot of it is related to the self defense hero mentality. I also think, with no documents to support it, that those who think they need weapons for self defense are more likely to use them against their family and friends.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 80):
Bad habits do not include flagging, keeping your finger on the trigger, etc. These are much more than bad habits, these actions are negligence and you shouldn't own a gun if you continuously have a 'bad habit' of doing this

I would not consider keeping your finger on the trigger a bad habbit. But there is plenty of space for bad habits in how handle weapons.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 80):
Again, be careful with polls my friend.

Statistics is extremely useful, when used properly. Not as dangerous as weapons, but not that far away.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 81):
Likewise my friend.

No you can't. You can disagree with my statements but not once do I let want triumph reality.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 81):
And so is the Left (isn't the Obama for America campaign still active?), what's your point?

Another example, this isn't a left vs right issue, it is much more complex than that. Look at who stood behind the assault weapons ban.

As to well organized. It doesn't take much research to see how incredibly better organized, and financed, the gunners are. Suggesting it is the show lack of knowledge or dishonesty.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 81):
Which ones?

??? How can you miss them?

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 81):
Which includes looking at the people who are the ones pulling the trigger instead of solely focusing on the weapon.

Not this lie again. It is the interaction between people and weapons that is addressed every time.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 81):
Absolutely as, contrary to popular belief, I haven't been to a single gun show where background checks WEREN'T a requirement so, oddly enough, it's government data which has made this claim.

So you're saying that many gun shows are used by private people to find buyers for their guns and these sales do not require checks?

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 81):
Not in this thread that I've seen, but I can't tell you how many threads I've read here about gun control and gun rights where I've seen posters, either here in the US or abroad, discuss how the US should ban private firearms or that they would be perfectly comfortable with the 2nd Amendment being scrapped or convey their very uninformed opinions on "how in the world anyone could interpret the 2nd Amendment as meaning private citizens have the right to bear arms", it's not an uncommon sentiment at all.

You must be thinking about the gunners, because it is they who make this claim. Fear mongering.

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 84):
One could also argue that Obama was using those surviving children as props for his gun control signings. I might sound insensitive, but think about it. I watched the signings affair live, start to finish, and the first thing that came to mind when I saw the children was "What's he got those poor kids up front for?" regards...jack

Ever thought about that many of the parents of those kids wanted them there?


User currently offlineSkyservice_330 From Canada, joined Sep 2000, 1411 posts, RR: 5
Reply 97, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2099 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 92):
Quoting itsjustme (Reply 88):
The kids weren't "props". Each one had written a letter to President Obama after the Sandy Hook shootings asking him to do something.

Yes they are props...How many kids who write letter's to the President about their mother's not aborting them does he trot out in front of him? It was disgusting act that Goebels, Stalin and Mao would of been proud of.

I can only assume you were equally outraged (disgusted) when Former President Bush used men and women in uniform as props during his 'Mission Accomplished' photo-op? And this isn't about Bush-Obama, more so to demonstrate that ALL politicians do this sort of thing.

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2010/11/19/bush-and-mission-accomplished-0ee0197c9068642f65bd7fcbbc6c2b8fdf75e8ed-s6-c10.jpg


User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1898 posts, RR: 9
Reply 98, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2081 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 96):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 81):
Likewise my friend.

No you can't. You can disagree with my statements but not once do I let want triumph reality.

...at least not the reality you want to see.

Quoting cmf (Reply 96):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 81):
And so is the Left (isn't the Obama for America campaign still active?), what's your point?

Another example, this isn't a left vs right issue, it is much more complex than that. Look at who stood behind the assault weapons ban.

Sure it is, the political Left is hand-in-hand with Progressive ideology, a cornerstone of which is the nationalization of force by the state. Now you can say you're a person of the political Left who disagrees with this, but that's certainly more the exception than the rule.

Quoting cmf (Reply 96):
As to well organized. It doesn't take much research to see how incredibly better organized, and financed, the gunners are. Suggesting it is the show lack of knowledge or dishonesty.

Nor is it difficult to discover that the NRA has it's equal in organizations such as Organizing for America and Think Progress, equally as well funded and vocal.

Quoting cmf (Reply 96):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 81):
Which ones?

??? How can you miss them?

Well I'm looking but all I'm finding is a bunch of conflicted results, some showing many against or many for, none of which are showing the precise questions asked either.

Quoting cmf (Reply 96):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 81):
Which includes looking at the people who are the ones pulling the trigger instead of solely focusing on the weapon.

Not this lie again. It is the interaction between people and weapons that is addressed every time.

Lie? What lie? An individual has to make a conscious decision to pull the trigger in order to kill somebody with a gun...unless you disagree with every legal precedent set by the courts regarding firearms. All we've been hearing in this debate is the gun side of the issue (no surprise) and nothing of the shooter or the commonalities between the perpetrators in all these recent mass shootings.

Quoting cmf (Reply 96):

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 81):
Absolutely as, contrary to popular belief, I haven't been to a single gun show where background checks WEREN'T a requirement so, oddly enough, it's government data which has made this claim.

So you're saying that many gun shows are used by private people to find buyers for their guns and these sales do not require checks?

That's the common idea being propagated, that everything is "loosey goosey" so-to-speak when it comes to gun shows, but as I said, I haven't been to one yet where buyers weren't required to pass background checks.

Quoting cmf (Reply 96):

You must be thinking about the gunners, because it is they who make this claim. Fear mongering.

You must not have been paying attention to many of the past threads on here regarding the subject.

Quoting cmf (Reply 96):
Ever thought about that many of the parents of those kids wanted them there?

For a free trip to Washington? Why not? Me personally, I wouldn't care who it was but I'd have serious reservations about coaxing or using my kid in such a political stunt, even if I agreed with it. Obama definitely isn't the only politician who is or has done this, so I'm not going feign outrage like he's the only guilty one or that he's god-awful for doing it, I'm just sick of that charade in politics in general, it's so cheap.


User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1342 posts, RR: 3
Reply 99, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2057 times:

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 75):
I suggest you re-read the NRA's Executive Director's statement found here. Not once did he attribute the root of the problem being mental illness. According to Mr. La Pierre and the NRA, the problems are: The media, not enough guns in our schools, and the real laugher - video games. I especially like the video game inference because on the one month anniversary of Newtown, the NRA came out with a gun-related video game. One that depicts the same weapon used in the Sandy Hook massacre. Who's being hypocritical?

Absolutely. It's pretty clear that most of the gun people here haven't actually read that statement. Particularly if note is the half-baked plan they came up with along with former senator Asa Hutchinson, where all those "armed" security guards they advocate are actually unpaid volunteers. That's right, like most republican causes, they're happy to put someone else in danger, as long as they don't pay them well or at all.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 94):

For anyone interested, there is no equivalent to the 2nd Amendment in the Canadian Constitution, in fact no reference to guns at all.

There's actually no reference to guns in ours either. The 2nd amendment would be satisfied by keeping steak knives legal. That it includes anything more than that is a complete fiction created by people who like toys more than they care about being at all socially responsible.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 100, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2041 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 98):
Sure it is, the political Left is hand-in-hand with Progressive ideology, a cornerstone of which is the nationalization of force by the state. Now you can say you're a person of the political Left who disagrees with this, but that's certainly more the exception than the rule.

Plenty of rights wanting gun control. Plenty of lefts wanting guns without responsibility. It is not a party line issue.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 98):
Nor is it difficult to discover that the NRA has it's equal in organizations such as Organizing for America and Think Progress, equally as well funded and vocal.

  
Not even in the same ballpark.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 98):
Well I'm looking but all I'm finding is a bunch of conflicted results, some showing many against or many for, none of which are showing the precise questions asked either.

There are plenty of reports and you need to be able to identify what they are displaying. Spend a little time and it is easy. If you want the answer to your exact question then you need to run your own poll. Of course you need to make sure the result isn't biased.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 98):
Lie? What lie? An individual has to make a conscious decision to pull the trigger in order to kill somebody with a gun...unless you disagree with every legal precedent set by the courts regarding firearms.

The lie you pushed again; that it is only about the weapon. All proposals about gun control is about how people interact with weapons.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 98):
You must not have been paying attention to many of the past threads on here regarding the subject.

I have paid attention. And I have objected over and over to the false claim you and your friends have done over and over.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 98):
For a free trip to Washington? Why not? Me personally, I wouldn't care who it was but I'd have serious reservations about coaxing or using my kid in such a political stunt, even if I agreed with it. Obama definitely isn't the only politician who is or has done this, so I'm not going feign outrage like he's the only guilty one or that he's god-awful for doing it, I'm just sick of that charade in politics in general, it's so cheap.

Just another attempt to make it about something else.


User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1898 posts, RR: 9
Reply 101, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2008 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 100):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 98):
Sure it is, the political Left is hand-in-hand with Progressive ideology, a cornerstone of which is the nationalization of force by the state. Now you can say you're a person of the political Left who disagrees with this, but that's certainly more the exception than the rule.

Plenty of rights wanting gun control. Plenty of lefts wanting guns without responsibility. It is not a party line issue.

Perhaps not party line, but it is absolutely an ideological issue. I've yet to meet a single self-labeled Progressive (not necessarily a Democrat) who shares the same right-to-bear-arms belief as the right.

Quoting cmf (Reply 100):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 98):
Nor is it difficult to discover that the NRA has it's equal in organizations such as Organizing for America and Think Progress, equally as well funded and vocal.


Not even in the same ballpark.

Most definitely in the same ballpark when you compare their organizational numbers and financials (at least as they themselves state it).

Quoting cmf (Reply 100):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 98):
Well I'm looking but all I'm finding is a bunch of conflicted results, some showing many against or many for, none of which are showing the precise questions asked either.

There are plenty of reports and you need to be able to identify what they are displaying. Spend a little time and it is easy.

Well that is the point (their credibility in what they say they're identifying), I'm not exactly finding reliable polling data for either side of the debate outside of the surge in gun sales and NRA membership.


Quoting cmf (Reply 100):
All proposals about gun control is about how people interact with weapons.

No they're not, banning or restricting the size of the magazines or assault weapons does not address the "mental/people" side of the issue. Great, you've banned assault weapons, so now these violent individuals will just use an old fashioned shot gun and kill 6 people instead of 12...that may be adequately addressing the issue for you, but I'd personally rather figure out what is making these people do it and try to stop that person from murdering at all.

Quoting cmf (Reply 100):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 98):
You must not have been paying attention to many of the past threads on here regarding the subject.

I have paid attention. And I have objected over and over to the false claim you and your friends have done over and over.

Oh yeah, it's a total concocted fantasy on our part:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 99):

There's actually no reference to guns in ours either. The 2nd amendment would be satisfied by keeping steak knives legal. That it includes anything more than that is a complete fiction created by people who like toys more than they care about being at all socially responsible.

 

I guess Darksnowynight knows better than almost 250 years of American Common Law.


User currently offlinecws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1176 posts, RR: 2
Reply 102, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1998 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 92):
Yes they are props...How many kids who write letter's to the President about their mother's not aborting them does he trot out in front of him?

Considering that Obama has been President for only four years, probably a tiny amount. How many four year olds do you know who write letters to the President?



volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5562 posts, RR: 6
Reply 103, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1990 times:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 90):
What happened in Newtown, CT is so rare, the NRA's proposals are just worthless. Better would be to spend money on proven security systems, unarmed security, limited access to inside schools buildings, safer/stronger doors and locks, 'panic buttons' in classrooms,

The only thing that Sandy Hook Elementary didn't have in your list was the last item. The front and side doors were locked tight. He went in through a window that he broke.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 104, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1979 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 101):
Perhaps not party line, but it is absolutely an ideological issue

No it isn't. It is however used by many to polarize the discussion.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 101):
who shares the same right-to-bear-arms belief as the right.

The right? The right doesn't stand unified behind one policy.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 101):
Most definitely in the same ballpark when you compare their organizational numbers and financials (at least as they themselves state it).

No, you can't take total budget from organisations dealing with multiple issues and count it as gun control spend. A classical way of abusing statistics.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 101):
Well that is the point (their credibility in what they say they're identifying), I'm not exactly finding reliable polling data for either side of the debate outside of the surge in gun sales and NRA membership.

You need to keep looking. The real question is how it will move going forward. Where it has moved lately is very clear. If it wasn't we wouldn't see this play out the way it is.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 101):
No they're not

Yes they are, e.g reducing magazine size you change how people behave with guns.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 101):
but I'd personally rather figure out what is making these people do it and try to stop that person from murdering at all.

So do I. But for some reason the gun lobby want to suppress data...

And I think you're honest enough to acknowledge that the only way to stop all gun related murders is to remove all guns. Something we all agree is too drastic. Thus the issue is also to reduce consequences when they are used.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 101):
Oh yeah, it's a total concocted fantasy on our part:

Sorry to say but yes it is. There is nothing in the text you quoted that suggests banning guns.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 103):
He went in through a window that he broke.

Actually he went in through a door. Specifically he broke the window in a door to get in.


User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1898 posts, RR: 9
Reply 105, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1922 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 104):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 101):
Perhaps not party line, but it is absolutely an ideological issue

No it isn't. It is however used by many to polarize the discussion.

You're obviously not familiar then with the genesis of Progressivism/Statism vs. Classical Liberalism/Constitutionalism.

Quoting cmf (Reply 104):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 101):
who shares the same right-to-bear-arms belief as the right.

The right? The right doesn't stand unified behind one policy.

Except for the belief that the individual has the right to bear arms....

Quoting cmf (Reply 104):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 101):
Most definitely in the same ballpark when you compare their organizational numbers and financials (at least as they themselves state it).

No, you can't take total budget from organisations dealing with multiple issues and count it as gun control spend. A classical way of abusing statistics.

It doesn't matter if they're dealing with multiple issues, the NRA also deals with multiple issues. The fact is, if they so choose, they have massive organizational heft to put behind specific issues and are indeed in the same ballpark organizationally as the NRA.


Quoting cmf (Reply 104):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 101):
No they're not

Yes they are, e.g reducing magazine size you change how people behave with guns.

If a person wants to shoot a gun and kill people, the size of the magazine is going to be of no consequence to him/her, it doesn't alter their decision to kill.

Quoting cmf (Reply 104):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 101):
but I'd personally rather figure out what is making these people do it and try to stop that person from murdering at all.

So do I. But for some reason the gun lobby want to suppress data...

What data? There's been little discussion of issues relating to medication, mental health and other issues in the mainstream. The only time I've seen them brought up is from NRA supporters.

Quoting cmf (Reply 104):
And I think you're honest enough to acknowledge that the only way to stop all gun related murders is to remove all guns. Something we all agree is too drastic.

We do agree here, but I'm not interested in stopping all gun-related murders. There's been an unmistakable and disturbing trend occurring in the past 20 years with troubled youths committing mass murder, I want to get to the bottom of this.

Quoting cmf (Reply 104):

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 101):
Oh yeah, it's a total concocted fantasy on our part:

Sorry to say but yes it is. There is nothing in the text you quoted that suggests banning guns.

Don't be ridiculous, obviously if he doesn't believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees citizens the right to bear firearms and that arms could be stretched just to mean citizens having "steak knives", then he obviously believes either private firearm possession should be banned or he wouldn't bat an eye if it were banned. There's no doubt the great majority of people and lawmakers in the US support the 2nd Amendment, but to deny that there exists a solid number of people and politicians who don't believe in the 2nd Amendment is irrational.


User currently onlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7095 posts, RR: 3
Reply 106, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1905 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 105):
If a person wants to shoot a gun and kill people, the size of the magazine is going to be of no consequence to him/her, it doesn't alter their decision to kill.

You don't get it, if a person wants to kill a lot of people quickly (which is what a massacre is) the size of the magazine is of consequence.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 107, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1891 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 105):
You're obviously not familiar then with the genesis of Progressivism/Statism vs. Classical Liberalism/Constitutionalism.

Most people are smarter than following party lines. Especially when they are hijacked by tea party, etc.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 105):
Except for the belief that the individual has the right to bear arms....

Look at what Reagan did. No problem for republicans to vote for an assault weapons ban. But of course, at that time NRA wasn't as strong.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 105):
It doesn't matter if they're dealing with multiple issues, the NRA also deals with multiple issues.

Of course it does. The federal 2013 spend is about 3.8 trillion. You would never state that is what they spend on defense. How money is spent matters. Just as what weapons are available matters. Life isn't binary.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 105):
What data? There's been little discussion of issues relating to medication, mental health and other issues in the mainstream. The only time I've seen them brought up is from NRA supporters.

For someone who claim to be informed you sure show lack of knowledge. A simple example, http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/
Why do you think one of the executive orders is; End the freeze on gun violence research

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 105):
If a person wants to shoot a gun and kill people, the size of the magazine is going to be of no consequence to him/her, it doesn't alter their decision to kill.

If he plans to shot one person he doesn't need more that one round. There are plenty enough examples of people escaping or gunfights ending because the shooter had to re-load.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 105):
but I'm not interested in stopping all gun-related murders.

 Wow!
Well, if you want to gun-related murders to continue I certainly understand your argument better. I want to stop all gun-related murders. I don't expect to stop all.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 105):
There's no doubt the great majority of people and lawmakers in the US support the 2nd Amendment, but to deny that there exists a solid number of people and politicians who don't believe in the 2nd Amendment is irrational.

Stop abusing the second amendment.


User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 10
Reply 108, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1851 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 105):
If a person wants to shoot a gun and kill people, the size of the magazine is going to be of no consequence to him/her, it doesn't alter their decision to kill.

Perhaps not. But the size of the magazine has been proven to have an impact on the number of casualties.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 105):
The only time I've seen them brought up is from NRA supporters.

Yet when addressing what steps are necessary to stop another Sandy Hook from occurring, the Exec. Director of the NRA never placed any blame for that incident on our country's mental health issues.


User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1898 posts, RR: 9
Reply 109, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1800 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 106):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 105):
If a person wants to shoot a gun and kill people, the size of the magazine is going to be of no consequence to him/her, it doesn't alter their decision to kill.

You don't get it, if a person wants to kill a lot of people quickly (which is what a massacre is) the size of the magazine is of consequence.

And you didn't read my original response to the proposition. Restricting magazine size might reduce the casualties, but it's of no consequence to the person deciding to do the shooting whether or not they'll be able to kill 6 or 12 people, they're still going to go out there and kill. I want to know and understand what's making these people decide to kill in the first place.

Quoting cmf (Reply 107):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 105):
You're obviously not familiar then with the genesis of Progressivism/Statism vs. Classical Liberalism/Constitutionalism.

Most people are smarter than following party lines. Especially when they are hijacked by tea party, etc.

And I've already discussed how it's not party-line based, one either believes the state has the authority to nationalize force or it doesn't. Cute tea party reference by the way.

Quoting cmf (Reply 107):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 105):
Except for the belief that the individual has the right to bear arms....

Look at what Reagan did. No problem for republicans to vote for an assault weapons ban. But of course, at that time NRA wasn't as strong.

An excellent example of why it's an ideological issue.

Quoting cmf (Reply 107):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 105):
It doesn't matter if they're dealing with multiple issues, the NRA also deals with multiple issues.

Of course it does. The federal 2013 spend is about 3.8 trillion. You would never state that is what they spend on defense. How money is spent matters.

It does and the point is that they have the organizational resources at their disposal if they so choose to spend their money that way on a specific issue.

Quoting cmf (Reply 107):

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 105):
What data? There's been little discussion of issues relating to medication, mental health and other issues in the mainstream. The only time I've seen them brought up is from NRA supporters.

For someone who claim to be informed you sure show lack of knowledge. A simple example, http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/
Why do you think one of the executive orders is; End the freeze on gun violence research

It's a free country, no private organization was ever prohibited from doing gun violence research.

Quoting cmf (Reply 107):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 105):
If a person wants to shoot a gun and kill people, the size of the magazine is going to be of no consequence to him/her, it doesn't alter their decision to kill.

If he plans to shot one person he doesn't need more that one round. There are plenty enough examples of people escaping or gunfights ending because the shooter had to re-load.

And there are plenty of examples of multiple people being killed with a single or two rounds of bullets.

Quoting cmf (Reply 107):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 105):
but I'm not interested in stopping all gun-related murders.

Wow!
Well, if you want to gun-related murders to continue I certainly understand your argument better. I want to stop all gun-related murders. I don't expect to stop all.

So you do want to stop all gun-related murders, but then you previously said the only way to do that was to ban all guns which you said was too "drastic"? Color me confused.

Quoting cmf (Reply 107):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 105):
There's no doubt the great majority of people and lawmakers in the US support the 2nd Amendment, but to deny that there exists a solid number of people and politicians who don't believe in the 2nd Amendment is irrational.

Stop abusing the second amendment.

Why don't you address the point instead of making illogical accusations? The only abuse of the 2nd Amendment I've seen on here was the claim that steak knives would satisfy the 2nd Amendment.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 108):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 105):
If a person wants to shoot a gun and kill people, the size of the magazine is going to be of no consequence to him/her, it doesn't alter their decision to kill.

Perhaps not. But the size of the magazine has been proven to have an impact on the number of casualties.

I'm not disputing that, but see my response to kiwirob. You might lessen the casualties at these shootings, but I'd rather look at the root cause that's bringing these troubled youths to decide to kill in the first place.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 108):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 105):
The only time I've seen them brought up is from NRA supporters.

Yet when addressing what steps are necessary to stop another Sandy Hook from occurring, the Exec. Director of the NRA never placed any blame for that incident on our country's mental health issues.

True, but he doesn't speak for all NRA supporters, many good points were brought up which have been largely ignored regarding mental health and medication in the larger debate which has centered almost solely on the guns. Consequently I do agree with Obama's executive orders concerning mental health.


User currently offlinejetmech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2684 posts, RR: 53
Reply 110, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1785 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 109):
You might lessen the casualties at these shootings, but I'd rather look at the root cause that's bringing these troubled youths to decide to kill in the first place.

It's probably nothing more than the usual adolescent / teenage angst.

Perhaps the unique feature in the US is something to do with all the guns? An angry teen is common enough in any country. Easily available guns are most prevalent in the US amongst first world, industrialised nations. An angry, implusive teen and a firearm are a deadly mix.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/201...en-held-in-shooting-of-five-people

Regards, JetMech



JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 10
Reply 111, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1751 times:

And it continues.

'Horrific' New Mexico shooting leaves 5 dead; investigators arrest 15-year-old

Investigators did not released the names of the victims Sunday afternoon, saying the process of formally identifying the remains was still going on. But they said the dead included a man, a woman and three grade-school-age children -- two girls and a boy. Each of victims had been shot multiple times, Bernalillo County sheriff's Lt. Sid Covington, said one of the weapons used was what he described as an assault rifle.
The kid probably played too many video games, right Wayne?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/20/justic...xico-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

[Edited 2013-01-20 17:09:09]

User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2716 posts, RR: 8
Reply 112, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1728 times:

And continues and continues by the looks of things......

900 more gun deaths since Sandy Hook tragedy !  Wow!  Wow!  Wow!  Wow!            

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...ticle.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10860223

Surely, even the most Pro gun mob, must realize that figure is way to high and that it must come down, dramatically. I mean, that's 30 people every day, simply lost to guns, and no other reason !



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 10
Reply 113, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1718 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 112):
I mean, that's 30 people every day, simply lost to guns, and no other reason !

Prepare to be told by more than a few here that guns have absolutely nothing to do with gun-related murders in the U.S. (that sounds ludicrous even as I type it). You'll be told the 30 gun-related murders a day since Sandy Hook (30 a day was about our average last year, by the way) are due to, and these are in no particular order: video games, mental illness, and probably my favorite cause, not enough people carrying guns.   


User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1342 posts, RR: 3
Reply 114, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1705 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 101):

I guess Darksnowynight knows better than almost 250 years of American Common Law.

Nahh, but a lot more than you apparently.

A. No part of that amendment specifies firearms, let alone the extremes we've abused it to thus far.

B. If you don't think a knife qualifies as an arm, go ahead an approach a cop with one during a traffic stop. Somewhere on your autopsy, the phrase "subject was armed" will appear.

The problem with your entire line of thinking is that you're relying on case law to say the 2nd amendment means semi-autos are ok. Citing common law is a bad idea here for a few reasons. Historically, it was the sole justification for slavery, property ownership as a requirement for voting, and few other things that have all been done away with. What you don't seem to get is that this can be corrected, even short of a new amendment, at any time.


Fight it all you want. But the fact of the matter is that if the NRA & gun crowd in general don't get with the program PDQ here, then yes, you will see a drastic scaling back of what your 2nd amendment "rights" are well within our lifetimes. As it stands, there is nothing stating we have to let you have these.


Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 112):

Surely, even the most Pro gun mob, must realize that figure is way to high and that it must come down, dramatically. I mean, that's 30 people every day, simply lost to guns, and no other reason !

Well, at least there's an equal number of thwarted robberies, break-ins, overthrown tyrants, and other benefits to offset that. Oh wait, nevermind, that will never ever be close to true, my bad...

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 113):

Prepare to be told by more than a few here that guns have absolutely nothing to do with gun-related murders in the U.S. (that sounds ludicrous even as I type it).

Honestly, I'm really beside myself at times when I hear the excuses people make for something with such an obvious solution.

What's amazing is that there are gun nuts here like DeltaMD90 (sorry, but with your collection, I'm assuming you're something of an enthusiast there), who can at least see enough of the big picture to acknowledge that change is coming whether they like it or not, and that it's better to be part of the solution than be completely overrun by something a good deal more draconian, but those voices get drowned out by people who fight over imaginary rights.

The problem for folks like that is that on the other side of the issue, there is a strong and growing political and social mandate to ensure that something does happen. In the end, stirring the pot and antagonizing responsibility advocates only makes it more likely that a full scale ban will eventually come to pass, especially as violence continues in the background. While I personally wouldn't have a problem in the world with a complete ban on civilian owned firearms, I also personally know a lot of people who would. I think there's still time for something equitable to be worked out, but I also believe that if this mantra of "gun violence can be traced to everything but guns" keeps up, eventually we'll lose patience on that.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinevarigb707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 115, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1698 times:

Quoting 2707200X (Thread starter):
don't know what the National Riffle Association is or was thinking or fantasizing about in pawning Obama's children

Expect the unexpected from the NRA (National Raygun ASSociation).


User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2716 posts, RR: 8
Reply 116, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1692 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 114):
Well, at least there's an equal number of thwarted robberies, break-ins, overthrown tyrants, and other benefits to offset that. Oh wait, nevermind, that will never ever be close to true, my bad...

Really  

Have you got any date to back that up ?



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1342 posts, RR: 3
Reply 117, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1693 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 116):

I guess I forgot to put up the sarcasm smiley. No, what I'm saying is that I agree that the cost of 30 lives a day will never, ever, be offset by the supposed benefits touted by the NRA. If you're really looking for numbers though, it's pretty well documented that there is an order of magnitude more accidental gun related deaths each year than homes protected by guns, from crime of any kind. That's our culture for you...



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2347 posts, RR: 8
Reply 118, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1694 times:

What a dumbass ill-concieved ad. Any president's children should be protected because they are potential targets. Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. NRA shooting themselves in the foot isn't new. Idiots.


oh boy!!!
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1342 posts, RR: 3
Reply 119, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1689 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 118):

Absolutely. This would have been just as outrageous if it was the Bush twins.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 10
Reply 120, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1662 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 114):
B. If you don't think a knife qualifies as an arm, go ahead an approach a cop with one during a traffic stop. Somewhere on your autopsy, the phrase "subject was armed" will appear.

An autopsy won't document whether or not a person was armed prior to their demise, but I understand your point. However, it is a bit flawed in your example. Depending on the circumstances and the intent of the person(s) possessing them, there are a plethora of items that can be interpreted as a deadly weapon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp8TGMvPuSE


User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1898 posts, RR: 9
Reply 121, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1603 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 114):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 101):

I guess Darksnowynight knows better than almost 250 years of American Common Law.

Nahh, but a lot more than you apparently.

Really? Because there's over 200 years of judicial precedence and litigation supporting my position and none supporting yours, yet you're the one who knows what they're talking about  
Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 114):
A. No part of that amendment specifies firearms, let alone the extremes we've abused it to thus far.

Oh right, yeah, the Founders totally went out of their way to craft an amendment in the Bill of Rights solely to protect knives.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 114):
The problem with your entire line of thinking is that you're relying on case law to say the 2nd amendment means semi-autos are ok. Citing common law is a bad idea here for a few reasons.

It's only a bad idea because it's supports a law of the land that you don't agree with. Of course my line of thinking relies on case law because the 2nd Amendment is law right now and as long as that remains so, the courts' interpretation of the law is relevant.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 114):
Historically, it was the sole justification for slavery, property ownership as a requirement for voting, and few other things that have all been done away with. What you don't seem to get is that this can be corrected, even short of a new amendment, at any time.

Sure it could, the court interprets the laws that are on the books. You can fantasize all you want about the 2nd Amendment being scrapped, but the fact of the matter for the present is that it is the law of the land and, as such, the personal freedom it grants to individuals to own fire arms has been reaffirmed time and time again.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
I Was Wrong.....The Flamegate Is Now Open On Me posted Wed Nov 8 2006 21:41:15 by Speedbird747BA
Cyborg Technology: The Future Is Now posted Wed Mar 29 2006 01:07:35 by AerospaceFan
"Hey Now, Here's Larry Sanders!" The Show Is Back posted Thu Dec 16 2010 12:17:12 by varigb707
The First World War Is Now Over posted Thu Oct 7 2010 05:52:08 by oly720man
Leaving Children In The Car To Die posted Wed Mar 11 2009 19:10:29 by PROSA
Russia Is To Deploy New Missiles In The Baltic posted Wed Nov 5 2008 16:24:38 by Mortyman
AIG On The Skids? Is This 'The End' For Now? posted Tue Sep 16 2008 05:28:50 by NAV20
London Is Now The ''Olympic'' City And New Logo? posted Sun Aug 24 2008 05:09:54 by OA260
The Verdict Is In: 'Cavemen' Sucks posted Wed Oct 10 2007 09:17:43 by IFEMaster
Where In The World Is Matt Lauer? posted Mon Apr 30 2007 15:40:58 by DeltaGator