Gifford Shooting-Let The Left-Wing Spin Begin

[oscardeuce]

Quote:Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348630
You're missing the point.  What I'm trying to convey doesn't seem to register with you.
 
Anti-gun zealot?

 That's rich.  I used to have more guns that you'd ever dream of.  Some of them that would be banned in today's standards (Thompson machine gun, fully auto AR-15, etc.)  I just decided I didn't need them any longer.  Had no use for them anymore.  The other thread on guns makes more logical sense.   Unless you have a practical use for a semi-auto or full-auto weapon that holds more than 15 rounds, there's no point selling them to the general public.  Gun zealots like you go into paranoia-mode and think if they restrict ANY type of firearm, then logically they'll eventually ban all forms of firearms.  There's not a politician on this planet that could EVER get that type of restrictive legislation through ANY Congress.  Not even if it were 100% anti-gun.  You'd have to amend the 2nd, and we all know that would NEVER happen.
 
When did you have then "banned" weapons.? Select fire thompsons or AR's are not banned as long as you pay the tax stamp and background check. By your post either you did not do this in violation of the NFA, or you have never owned NFA weapons.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348630
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348566
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348548
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348301
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348132
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348070
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348028
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348023
Quote:

Originally Posted by Fishtaco http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348017
Quote:
Originally Posted by socal57che http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/60#post_3348003
I'm not someone that was trained by the CIA to kill people with my pinky finger (and I hate black rifles with scary features), but I play one on the internet. Nice, Rambo. Real nice. Dude, get real. We really don't care what you were secretly "trained" to do. Go play 007 somewhere else.
Tonka trucks are not dangerous toys, and I think they should not be recalled.
I have an act called the tea party. LOL
What the hell are you talking about? I have not made any claims other than I was in the service, your truly an idiot and doing a fine job representing the Tea Party here. I guess my toy soldier comments are striking home though because obviously you are another conservative who never had the balls to actually serve their country but think they can handle a 50. in a combat situation.
My job in the military was my job, if you knew anything at all, you would know that kind of work is not uncommon, nor the CIA or being a secret agent. My job was like being a mailman who would be in some serious trouble if I ever misplaced something in my chain of custody. Have a nice day though Socal, maybe you and your Tea Party buddies can go down and make fun of some vets at the Vets Club this evening for fun.
Fishtaco
lol you basically said I don't have any interest in assault weapons because I don't need them to kill someone due to my special training. I'll go back and quote you if you'd like.
Do yourself a favor stdreb and stay away from the "Big Boy" toys. You'd just shoot yourself in the foot 10 times before taking your finger off the trigger.
As far as 'assault-type weapons' go, the only one I would consider to be useful to a 'normal civilian' would be the AR-15. It's a nice lightweight semi-auto that can be very useful while hunting larger prey. Sure you can throw bigger clips into it, but why? If you can't kill a deer in less than 5 shots, you have no business hunting in the first place. Home protection? Again, needing that many shots will only result in you killing a family member before hitting the intruder. If anyone is a Rambo, it's the wannabes that buy the Uzi's, AK47's, and AR-15's just so they can go hang out with all their other macho buddies at the shooting range and blow $50 in 10 minutes in ammo. To each his own I guess.
We have many items in our homes that aren't useful. So what? I figure it will cost me a couple bucks a pull once I get the 50 upper for the AR. Have no intention of ever hunting with it. Just something to go out in the sticks and have some fun with once in a while. No different than someone buying a Vette or a McMansion.
Like I said, to each his own. As you know, I've done 'the gun thing'. I don't see the correlation of owning a semi-auto weapon and and large home. Buying a big house isn't something I would consider a 'hobby'. Collecting Vette's and buying one just to drive on the weekend's? Sure. But then again, the majority of the items that you have lying around that you consider useless weren't made for the sole purpose of killing something. You can rationalize that a baseball bat or golf club could be used as a deadly weapon, but that isn't what the manufacturer intended for that item to be used as. A gun manufacturer builds guns specifically to be used as a weapon to kill. That's the primary purpose of any firearm, no matter what type it is, plain and simple.
I can use certain household chemicals we all have laying about to make a bomb which could easily kill someone. Does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to have said chemicals? More people are injured by knives per year than guns. Does that mean we should ban knives? How about water? You are something like 9 times more likely to drown than be shot.
Spoken like a true NRA card-toting gun nut.
Household chemicals weren't created to build bombs. Sure they can be used for that purpose, but that wasn't the intent of the manufacturer.
Certain knives, sure. Who needs a Samurai Sword? Could you walk into a crowd with 30 knives and lethally kill or harm that many people in that short of time before being taken down? Seriously doubt it.
Didn't know I could walk up to someone and hit them 30 times with a water balloon and kill them like this 30-round Glock this guy was carrying.
That's your problem reef, you want to make it sound like every single item in the world could be used as a deadly weapon. In reality, you're right. With the right training and practice, I could kill someone with a twig, pencil, needle, ball-point pen, or a piece of paper. But NONE of those items were designed for that purpose. AGAIN, the sole purpose of a gun is to KILL. You can sugarcoat the rationalization and say people buy guns for collecting or just plinking in shooting ranges. But ultimately the main intention for ANY firearm is to use it as a weapon to kill or disable what you are pointing it at.

Spoken like a anti-gun zealot. A car COULD be used for mass murder. Household chemicals COULD be used for mass murder. A gun COULD be used for mass murder.
What are hunting riffles made to do? Yet the guy who went all Rambo on the people from the bell tower down there in the 60's had two hunting riffles with him in addition to a M14. Does that mean we should ban hunting riffles too?
You're missing the point. What I'm trying to convey doesn't seem to register with you.
Anti-gun zealot?

That's rich. I used to have more guns that you'd ever dream of. Some of them that would be banned in today's standards (Thompson machine gun, fully auto AR-15, etc.) I just decided I didn't need them any longer. Had no use for them anymore. The other thread on guns makes more logical sense. Unless you have a practical use for a semi-auto or full-auto weapon that holds more than 15 rounds, there's no point selling them to the general public. Gun zealots like you go into paranoia-mode and think if they restrict ANY type of firearm, then logically they'll eventually ban all forms of firearms. There's not a politician on this planet that could EVER get that type of restrictive legislation through ANY Congress. Not even if it were 100% anti-gun. You'd have to amend the 2nd, and we all know that would NEVER happen.
Again, if you want to start banning things there are no practical use for things are going to get boring. Thankfully our constitution prevent paranoid people like you from trampling on my right to engage in my hobby as I see fit.

 

[wangotango]

Whose gonna man up to it? Who speaks for "the Democrats." Who speaks for Sarah Palin? Is every single Democrat supposed to apologize? Is every Republican? I honestly don't think the majority of politicians are that pissed at the other side and can speak for what their party portrays. The ones that are/do are the same ones interviewed on MSNBC and Fox News every night. Both sides (of the news media) to a certain extent have been giving the "why can't we be friends" talk and "lets tone things down" and neither of them have which should really come as no surprise. I'd like to think that anyone on any side whether they're a pundit or politician would have the balls to man up to stupid things they've done and said, but they havn't. You think Bill O'Reily or Chris Matthews will? People unfortunately are pointing fingers at Sarah Palin, and obviously she had nothing to do with this happening. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that. She has gone beyond talking as a politician frustrated with her opponents and has crossed into the news media spotlight. She is not a politician anymore. She doesn't speak for the Republicans anymore, she speaks for herself. She is accountable for what SHE does and says not the Republicans. It'd be the same if she was a Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist, Ice Cream party. Any other commentator is responsible for what they say, not their party. I mean hell even Olbermann apologized for saying bad stuff and fessed up to donating money to Giffords. He's gone right back to the typical "left vs right" too. If politicians do and say stuff that the people don't like, they don't get re-elected. We're stuck with people like Palin, O'Reily, Olbermann, and whoever. Why are they going after Palin's map and not the Democrat's one? I don't know. Maybe everyone forgot about it, or maybe whoever made it isn't on TV 24/7 with the same message. She's putting herself out there, so she should be able to take the heat for it. Even if she just says "sorry guys" to get everyone off her back, but no. She peeks out from under the bus to tell the driver to back up and pull forward again. And by that reference I do not mean that I wish she was repeatedly run over by a bus...
The sheriff did make some stretches that he probably shouldn't have made. That is not a reason for him to be vilified by people like O'Reily and the blondie squad (or Beck, or Olbermann, or Maddow or Santa Clause). I don't know his political affiliation nor do I care, nor does it matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348531
Quote:
Originally Posted by WangoTango http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348497
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348261
lol this is classic
>
"Sarah Palin, once again, has found a way to become part of the story. And she may well face further criticism for the timing and scope of her remarks."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/01/the-note-obama-palin-and-arizona-a-tale-of-two-speeches.html
ok so how after being labeled as basically an accomplice to a mass murder. Her statement is her seeking the limelight.
At some point I really do hope she just shuts up... "Blood libel?" What she COULD HAVE done was say "That map graphic was a bad idea, and I apologize for using it and saying or doing anything that may have been hurtful to others." Others did it, but she did not.
And because the Pima County Sheriff isn't a pundit he isn't allowed to comment on the political situation? And Hillary Clinton is bad for saying that we have extremists in this country?
Point one. Are you also calling on the Democrat leadership counsel to apologize for their use of the bullseye map I posted earlier in the thread?
2) As the head of the investigating agency the sheriff should know it is absolutely not appropriate for him to make these comments, even if he had anything to base them on. You can bet that it will be brought up in court as part of Fester Jr's defense. But what would you expect. When 1070 was passed the moron said even if the supreme court upholds the law he wont enforce it.

 

[socal57che]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/120#post_3348639
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348630
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348566
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348548
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348301
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348132
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348070
pan>Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348028
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishtaco http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348017
Quote:
Originally Posted by socal57che http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/60#post_3348003
I'm not someone that was trained by the CIA to kill people with my pinky finger (and I hate black rifles with scary features), but I play one on the internet. Nice, Rambo. Real nice. Dude, get real. We really don't care what you were secretly "trained" to do. Go play 007 somewhere else.
Tonka trucks are not dangerous toys, and I think they should not be recalled.
I have an act called the tea party. LOL
What the hell are you talking about? I have not made any claims other than I was in the service, your truly an idiot and doing a fine job representing the Tea Party here. I guess my toy soldier comments are striking home though because obviously you are another conservative who never had the balls to actually serve their country but think they can handle a 50. in a combat situation.
My job in the military was my job, if you knew anything at all, you would know that kind of work is not uncommon, nor the CIA or being a secret agent. My job was like being a mailman who would be in some serious trouble if I ever misplaced something in my chain of custody. Have a nice day though Socal, maybe you and your Tea Party buddies can go down and make fun of some vets at the Vets Club this evening for fun.
Fishtaco
lol you basically said I don't have any interest in assault weapons because I don't need them to kill someone due to my special training. I'll go back and quote you if you'd like.
Do yourself a favor stdreb and stay away from the "Big Boy" toys. You'd just shoot yourself in the foot 10 times before taking your finger off the trigger.
As far as 'assault-type weapons' go, the only one I would consider to be useful to a 'normal civilian' would be the AR-15. It's a nice lightweight semi-auto that can be very useful while hunting larger prey. Sure you can throw bigger clips into it, but why? If you can't kill a deer in less than 5 shots, you have no business hunting in the first place. Home protection? Again, needing that many shots will only result in you killing a family member before hitting the intruder. If anyone is a Rambo, it's the wannabes that buy the Uzi's, AK47's, and AR-15's just so they can go hang out with all their other macho buddies at the shooting range and blow $50 in 10 minutes in ammo. To each his own I guess.
We have many items in our homes that aren't useful. So what? I figure it will cost me a couple bucks a pull once I get the 50 upper for the AR. Have no intention of ever hunting with it. Just something to go out in the sticks and have some fun with once in a while. No different than someone buying a Vette or a McMansion.
Like I said, to each his own. As you know, I've done 'the gun thing'. I don't see the correlation of owning a semi-auto weapon and and large home. Buying a big house isn't something I would consider a 'hobby'. Collecting Vette's and buying one just to drive on the weekend's? Sure. But then again, the majority of the items that you have lying around that you consider useless weren't made for the sole purpose of killing something. You can rationalize that a baseball bat or golf club could be used as a deadly weapon, but that isn't what the manufacturer intended for that item to be used as. A gun manufacturer builds guns specifically to be used as a weapon to kill. That's the primary purpose of any firearm, no matter what type it is, plain and simple.
I can use certain household chemicals we all have laying about to make a bomb which could easily kill someone. Does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to have said chemicals? More people are injured by knives per year than guns. Does that mean we should ban knives? How about water? You are something like 9 times more likely to drown than be shot.
/>
Spoken like a true NRA card-toting gun nut.
Household chemicals weren't created to build bombs. Sure they can be used for that purpose, but that wasn't the intent of the manufacturer.
Certain knives, sure. Who needs a Samurai Sword? Could you walk into a crowd with 30 knives and lethally kill or harm that many people in that short of time before being taken down? Seriously doubt it.
Didn't know I could walk up to someone and hit them 30 times with a water balloon and kill them like this 30-round Glock this guy was carrying.
That's your problem reef, you want to make it sound like every single item in the world could be used as a deadly weapon. In reality, you're right. With the right training and practice, I could kill someone with a twig, pencil, needle, ball-point pen, or a piece of paper. But NONE of those items were designed for that purpose. AGAIN, the sole purpose of a gun is to KILL. You can sugarcoat the rationalization and say people buy guns for collecting or just plinking in shooting ranges. But ultimately the main intention for ANY firearm is to use it as a weapon to kill or disable what you are pointing it at.
Spoken like a anti-gun zealot. A car COULD be used for mass murder. Household chemicals COULD be used for mass murder. A gun COULD be used for mass murder.
What are hunting riffles made to do? Yet the guy who went all Rambo on the people from the bell tower down there in the 60's had two hunting riffles with him in addition to a M14. Does that mean we should ban hunting riffles too?
You're missing the point. What I'm trying to convey doesn't seem to register with you.
Anti-gun zealot?

That's rich. I used to have more guns that you'd ever dream of. Some of them that would be banned in today's standards (Thompson machine gun, fully auto AR-15, etc.) I just decided I didn't need them any longer. Had no use for them anymore. The other thread on guns makes more logical sense. Unless you have a practical use for a semi-auto or full-auto weapon that holds more than 15 rounds, there's no point selling them to the general public. Gun zealots like you go into paranoia-mode and think if they restrict ANY type of firearm, then logically they'll eventually ban all forms of firearms. There's not a politician on this planet that could EVER get that type of restrictive legislation through ANY Congress. Not even if it were 100% anti-gun. You'd have to amend the 2nd, and we all know that would NEVER happen.
Again, if you want to start banning things there are no practical use for things are going to get boring. Thankfully our constitution prevent paranoid people like you from trampling on my right to engage in my hobby as I see fit.
What a colossal quote, dude. That thing makes my head spin. I don't think my civilain brain can keep up if we insist on quoting one another. If people ignored things that would have resulted in a record that may have prevented this guy from legally obtaining a firearm, then they should be held accountable in some manner. Other officials and politicians should shut up so we can try, then fry this guy. (yes, I meant for that to rhyme)

 

[socal57che]

Quote:
Originally Posted by socal57che http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/120#post_3348695
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/120#post_3348639
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348630
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348566
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348548
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348301
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348132
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348070
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348028
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishtaco http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348017
Quote:
Originally Posted by socal57che http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/60#post_3348003
I'm not someone that was trained by the CIA to kill people with my pinky finger (and I hate black rifles with scary features), but I play one on the internet. Nice, Rambo. Real nice. Dude, get real. We really don't care what you were secretly "trained" to do. Go play 007 somewhere else.
Tonka trucks are not dangerous toys, and I think they should not be recalled.
I have an act called the tea party. LOL
/>What the hell are you talking about? I have not made any claims other than I was in the service, your truly an idiot and doing a fine job representing the Tea Party here. I guess my toy soldier comments are striking home though because obviously you are another conservative who never had the balls to actually serve their country but think they can handle a 50. in a combat situation.
My job in the military was my job, if you knew anything at all, you would know that kind of work is not uncommon, nor the CIA or being a secret agent. My job was like being a mailman who would be in some serious trouble if I ever misplaced something in my chain of custody. Have a nice day though Socal, maybe you and your Tea Party buddies can go down and make fun of some vets at the Vets Club this evening for fun.
Fishtaco
lol you basically said I don't have any interest in assault weapons because I don't need them to kill someone due to my special training. I'll go back and quote you if you'd like.
Do yourself a favor stdreb and stay away from the "Big Boy" toys. You'd just shoot yourself in the foot 10 times before taking your finger off the trigger.
As far as 'assault-type weapons' go, the only one I would consider to be useful to a 'normal civilian' would be the AR-15. It's a nice lightweight semi-auto that can be very useful while hunting larger prey. Sure you can throw bigger clips into it, but why? If you can't kill a deer in less than 5 shots, you have no business hunting in the first place. Home protection? Again, needing that many shots will only result in you killing a family member before hitting the intruder. If anyone is a Rambo, it's the wannabes that buy the Uzi's, AK47's, and AR-15's just so they can go hang out with all their other macho buddies at the shooting range and blow $50 in 10 minutes in ammo. To each his own I guess.
We have many items in our homes that aren't useful. So what? I figure it will cost me a couple bucks a pull once I get the 50 upper for the AR. Have no intention of ever hunting with it. Just something to go out in the sticks and have some fun with once in a while. No different than someone buying a Vette or a McMansion.
Like I said, to each his own. As you know, I've done 'the gun thing'. I don't see the correlation of owning a semi-auto weapon and and large home. Buying a big house isn't something I would consider a 'hobby'. Collecting Vette's and buying one just to drive on the weekend's? Sure. But then again, the majority of the items that you have lying around that you consider useless weren't made for the sole purpose of killing something. You can rationalize that a baseball bat or golf club could be used as a deadly weapon, but that isn't what the manufacturer intended for that item to be used as. A gun manufacturer builds guns specifically to be used as a weapon to kill. That's the primary purpose of any firearm, no matter what type it is, plain and simple.
I can use certain household chemicals we all have laying about to make a bomb which could easily kill someone. Does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to have said chemicals? More people are injured by knives per year than guns. Does that mean we should ban knives? How about water? You are something like 9 times more likely to drown than be shot.
Spoken like a true NRA card-toting gun nut.
Household chemicals weren't created to build bombs. Sure they can be used for that purpose, but that wasn't the intent of the manufacturer.
Certain knives, sure. Who needs a Samurai Sword? Could you walk into a crowd with 30 knives and lethally kill or harm that many people in that short of time before being taken down? Seriously doubt it.
Didn't know I could walk up to someone and hit them 30 times with a water balloon and kill them like this 30-round Glock this guy was carrying.
That's your problem reef, you want to make it sound like every single item in the world could be used as a deadly weapon. In reality, you're right. With the right training and practice, I could kill someone with a twig, pencil, needle, ball-point pen, or a piece of paper. But NONE of those items were designed for that purpose. AGAIN, the sole purpose of a gun is to KILL. You can sugarcoat the rationalization and say people buy guns for collecting or just plinking in shooting ranges. But ultimately the main intention for ANY firearm is to use it as a weapon to kill or disable what you are pointing it at.
Spoken like a anti-gun zealot. A car COULD be used for mass murder. Household chemicals COULD be used for mass murder. A gun COULD be used for mass murder.
What are hunting riffles made to do? Yet the guy who went all Rambo on the people from the bell tower down there in the 60's had two hunting riffles with him in addition to a M14. Does that mean we should ban hunting riffles too?
You're missing the point. What I'm trying to convey doesn't seem to register with you.
Anti-gun zealot?

That's rich. I used to have more guns that you'd ever dream of. Some of them that would be banned in today's standards (Thompson machine gun, fully auto AR-15, etc.) I just decided I didn't need them any longer. Had no use for them anymore. The other thread on guns makes more logical sense. Unless you have a practical use for a semi-auto or full-auto weapon that holds more than 15 rounds, there's no point selling them to the general public. Gun zealots like you go into paranoia-mode and think if they restrict ANY type of firearm, then logically they'll eventually ban all forms of firearms. There's not a politician on this planet that could EVER get that type of restrictive legislation through ANY Congress. Not even if it were 100% anti-gun. You'd have to amend the 2nd, and we all know that would NEVER happen.
Again, if you want to start banning things there are no practical use for things are going to get boring. Thankfully our constitution prevent paranoid people like you from trampling on my right to engage in my hobby as I see fit.
What a colossal quote, dude. That thing makes my head spin. I don't think my civilain brain can keep up if we insist on quoting one another. If people ignored things that would have resulted in a record that may have prevented this guy from legally obtaining a firearm, then they should be held accountable in some manner. Other officials and politicians should shut up so we can try, then fry this guy. (yes, I meant for that to rhyme)
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/120#post_3348639
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348630
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348566
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348548
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348301

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348132
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348070
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348028
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishtaco http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/80#post_3348017
Quote:
Originally Posted by socal57che http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/60#post_3348003
I'm not someone that was trained by the CIA to kill people with my pinky finger (and I hate black rifles with scary features), but I play one on the internet. Nice, Rambo. Real nice. Dude, get real. We really don't care what you were secretly "trained" to do. Go play 007 somewhere else.

Tonka trucks are not dangerous toys, and I think they should not be recalled.
I have an act called the tea party. LOL
What the hell are you talking about? I have not made any claims other than I was in the service, your truly an idiot and doing a fine job representing the Tea Party here. I guess my toy soldier comments are striking home though because obviously you are another conservative who never had the balls to actually serve their country but think they can handle a 50. in a combat situation.
My job in the military was my job, if you knew anything at all, you would know that kind of work is not uncommon, nor the CIA or being a secret agent. My job was like being a mailman who would be in some serious trouble if I ever misplaced something in my chain of custody. Have a nice day though Socal, maybe you and your Tea Party buddies can go down and make fun of some vets at the Vets Club this evening for fun.
Fishtaco
lol you basically said I don't have any interest in assault weapons because I don't need them to kill someone due to my special training. I'll go back and quote you if you'd like.
Do yourself a favor stdreb and stay away from the "Big Boy" toys. You'd just shoot yourself in the foot 10 times before taking your finger off the trigger.
As far as 'assault-type weapons' go, the only one I would consider to be useful to a 'normal civilian' would be the AR-15. It's a nice lightweight semi-auto that can be very useful while hunting larger prey. Sure you can throw bigger clips into it, but why? If you can't kill a deer in less than 5 shots, you have no business hunting in the first place. Home protection? Again, needing that many shots will only result in you killing a family member before hitting the intruder. If anyone is a Rambo, it's the wannabes that buy the Uzi's, AK47's, and AR-15's just so they can go hang out with all their other macho buddies at the shooting range and blow $50 in 10 minutes in ammo. To each his own I guess.
We have many items in our homes that aren't useful. So what? I figure it will cost me a couple bucks a pull once I get the 50 upper for the AR. Have no intention of ever hunting with it. Just something to go out in the sticks and have some fun with once in a while. No different than someone buying a Vette or a McMansion.
Like I said, to each his own. As you know, I've done 'the gun thing'. I don't see the correlation of owning a semi-auto weapon and and large home. Buying a big house isn't something I would consider a 'hobby'. Collecting Vette's and buying one just to drive on the weekend's? Sure. But then again, the majority of the items that you have lying around that you consider useless weren't made for the sole purpose of killing something. You can rationalize that a baseball bat or golf club could be used as a deadly weapon, but that isn't what the manufacturer intended for that item to be used as. A gun manufacturer builds guns specifically to be used as a weapon to kill. That's the primary purpose of any firearm, no matter what type it is, plain and simple.
I can use certain household chemicals we all have laying about to make a bomb which could easily kill someone. Does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to have said chemicals? More people are injured by knives per year than guns. Does that mean we should ban knives? How about water? You are something like 9 times more likely to drown than be shot.
Spoken like a true NRA card-toting gun nut.
Household chemicals weren't created to build bombs. Sure they can be used for that purpose, but that wasn't the intent of the manufacturer.
Certain knives, sure. Who needs a Samurai Sword? Could you walk into a crowd with 30 knives and lethally kill or harm that many people in that short of time before being taken down? Seriously doubt it.
Didn't know I could walk up to someone and hit them 30 times with a water balloon and kill them like this 30-round Glock this guy was carrying.
That's your problem reef, you want to make it sound like every single item in the world could be used as a deadly weapon. In reality, you're right. With the right training and practice, I could kill someone with a twig, pencil, needle, ball-point pen, or a piece of paper. But NONE of those items were designed for that purpose. AGAIN, the sole purpose of a gun is to KILL. You can sugarcoat the rationalization and say people buy guns for collecting or just plinking in shooting ranges. But ultimately the main intention for ANY firearm is to use it as a weapon to kill or disable what you are pointing it at.
Spoken like a anti-gun zealot. A car COULD be used for mass murder. Household chemicals COULD be used for mass murder. A gun COULD be used for mass murder.
What are hunting riffles made to do? Yet the guy who went all Rambo on the people from the bell tower down there in the 60's had two hunting riffles with him in addition to a M14. Does that mean we should ban hunting riffles too?
You're missing the point. What I'm trying to convey doesn't seem to register with you.
Anti-gun zealot?

That's rich. I used to have more guns that you'd ever dream of. Some of them that would be banned in today's standards (Thompson machine gun, fully auto AR-15, etc.) I just decided I didn't need them any longer. Had no use for them anymore. The other thread on guns makes more logical sense. Unless you have a practical use for a semi-auto or full-auto weapon that holds more than 15 rounds, there's no point selling them to the general public. Gun zealots like you go into paranoia-mode and think if they restrict ANY type of firearm, then logically they'll eventually ban all forms of firearms. There's not a politician on this planet that could EVER get that type of restrictive legislation through ANY Congress. Not even if it were 100% anti-gun. You'd have to amend the 2nd, and we all know that would NEVER happen.
Again, if you want to start banning things there are no practical use for things are going to get boring. Thankfully our constitution prevent paranoid people like you from trampling on my right to engage in my hobby as I see fit.
The multi-quote feature makes it even worse. How is a sane person supposed to keep up with this? This forum is already hard enough to navigate.

 

[bionicarm]

We can keep re-quoting the quotes. By the time we're done, one comment will take up 3 pages.

There's definitely flaws in this new system. I've tried quoting on a single comment, wrote some four line dissertation, hit the 'Submit' button, and nothing comes back. Think the same thing happened to oscar or socal.
To reply to a response from reef just 3 comments back - How am I the one whose paranoid? I made the statement that it's very doubtful you could ever put a complete restriction on firearms of every type imaginable. You're the one who seems fixated on the notion that if they restrict one, that it's a logical conclusion they'll restrict all. I also find it comical how the gun lovers use the 2nd to justify owning these types of weapons in the first place. I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers would have imagined that one day someone would be capable of inventing and producing a firearm that's capable of spitting out 50 rounds of ammunition in 10 seconds. They were still shooting flintlock's back in their days. Technology has afforded us some amazing things. I'm still waiting for the portable phaser to go into mass production. Forget shooting lead. Just give me a handheld device that's capable of incinerating an entire body with the push of a button. I suppose you'd think that type of weapon sould be protected under the 2nd as well?

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/120#post_3348711
We can keep re-quoting the quotes. By the time we're done, one comment will take up 3 pages.

There's definitely flaws in this new system. I've tried quoting on a single comment, wrote some four line dissertation, hit the 'Submit' button, and nothing comes back. Think the same thing happened to oscar or socal.
To reply to a response from reef just 3 comments back - How am I the one whose paranoid? I made the statement that it's very doubtful you could ever put a complete restriction on firearms of every type imaginable. You're the one who seems fixated on the notion that if they restrict one, that it's a logical conclusion they'll restrict all. I also find it comical how the gun lovers use the 2nd to justify owning these types of weapons in the first place. I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers would have imagined that one day someone would be capable of inventing and producing a firearm that's capable of spitting out 50 rounds of ammunition in 10 seconds. They were still shooting flintlock's back in their days. Technology has afforded us some amazing things. I'm still waiting for the portable phaser to go into mass production. Forget shooting lead. Just give me a handheld device that's capable of incinerating an entire body with the push of a button. I suppose you'd think that type of weapon sould be protected under the 2nd as well?
When it comes right down to it the founders wanted people to be able to stand up to our own government should the need arise which means having the same armaments as any military would at the time. I ain't saying we should allow people to carry automatics with grenade launchers but I see no issue with semis.
Do you really want me to go through all the examples of the government getting their foot in the door with a program and going far beyond what was initially proposed or promised? It isn't paranoia that makes me think we would screwed once we start letting them ban certain guns, it's experience.

 

[stdreb27]

Quote:
Originally Posted by WangoTango http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348497
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/100#post_3348261
lol this is classic
"Sarah Palin, once again, has found a way to become part of the story. And she may well face further criticism for the timing and scope of her remarks."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/01/the-note-obama-palin-and-arizona-a-tale-of-two-speeches.html
ok so how after being labeled as basically an accomplice to a mass murder. Her statement is her seeking the limelight.
At some point I really do hope she just shuts up... "Blood libel?" What she COULD HAVE done was say "That map graphic was a bad idea, and I apologize for using it and saying or doing anything that may have been hurtful to others." Others did it, but she did not.
And because the Pima County Sheriff isn't a pundit he isn't allowed to comment on the political situation? And Hillary Clinton is bad for saying that we have extremists in this country?
lol, they are calling her an accomplice to murder, I really hope she shuts up, bends over and takes it too.
As for blood libel, I think it is accurately used. The democrats are accusing her of murder (kids died), for her own political gain. How is that much different than some people accusing the Jews of killing baby Christians for some Jewish ceremony.
As for the sheriff, ABSOLUTELY NOT. It is a complete misuse of his position as a LAW ENFORCEMENT officer. He should remove himself as a chief investigator. Because he has an OBVIOUS bias. Because it isn't a political situation, it is a mass murder. It is a CRIMINAL SITUATION. He's admitted everything he's said accusing major republican political people, is entirely supposition. With no evidence whatsoever.
Hilary saying something is fine, she's in a political office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/120#post_3348715
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm st_3348711">
We can keep re-quoting the quotes. By the time we're done, one comment will take up 3 pages.

There's definitely flaws in this new system. I've tried quoting on a single comment, wrote some four line dissertation, hit the 'Submit' button, and nothing comes back. Think the same thing happened to oscar or socal.
To reply to a response from reef just 3 comments back - How am I the one whose paranoid? I made the statement that it's very doubtful you could ever put a complete restriction on firearms of every type imaginable. You're the one who seems fixated on the notion that if they restrict one, that it's a logical conclusion they'll restrict all. I also find it comical how the gun lovers use the 2nd to justify owning these types of weapons in the first place. I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers would have imagined that one day someone would be capable of inventing and producing a firearm that's capable of spitting out 50 rounds of ammunition in 10 seconds. They were still shooting flintlock's back in their days. Technology has afforded us some amazing things. I'm still waiting for the portable phaser to go into mass production. Forget shooting lead. Just give me a handheld device that's capable of incinerating an entire body with the push of a button. I suppose you'd think that type of weapon sould be protected under the 2nd as well?
When it comes right down to it the founders wanted people to be able to stand up to our own government should the need arise which means having the same armaments as any military would at the time. I ain't saying we should allow people to carry automatics with grenade launchers but I see no issue with semis.
Do you really want me to go through all the examples of the government getting their foot in the door with a program and going far beyond what was initially proposed or promised? It isn't paranoia that makes me think we would screwed once we start letting them ban certain guns, it's experience.
lol, but you must ignore the past, because it is 100 years ago it doesn't make any sense.
The whole point of the 2nd ammendment is to make sure we are able to own guns to use against our own federal government. lol

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/120#post_3348715
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/120#post_3348711
We can keep re-quoting the quotes. By the time we're done, one comment will take up 3 pages.

There's definitely flaws in this new system. I've tried quoting on a single comment, wrote some four line dissertation, hit the 'Submit' button, and nothing comes back. Think the same thing happened to oscar or socal.
To reply to a response from reef just 3 comments back - How am I the one whose paranoid? I made the statement that it's very doubtful you could ever put a complete restriction on firearms of every type imaginable. You're the one who seems fixated on the notion that if they restrict one, that it's a logical conclusion they'll restrict all. I also find it comical how the gun lovers use the 2nd to justify owning these types of weapons in the first place. I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers would have imagined that one day someone would be capable of inventing and producing a firearm that's capable of spitting out 50 rounds of ammunition in 10 seconds. They were still shooting flintlock's back in their days. Technology has afforded us some amazing things. I'm still waiting for the portable phaser to go into mass production. Forget shooting lead. Just give me a handheld device that's capable of incinerating an entire body with the push of a button. I suppose you'd think that type of weapon sould be protected under the 2nd as well?
When it comes right down to it the founders wanted people to be able to stand up to our own government should the need arise which means having the same armaments as any military would at the time. I ain't saying we should allow people to carry automatics with grenade launchers but I see no issue with semis.
Do you really want me to go through all the examples of the government getting their foot in the door with a program and going far beyond what was initially proposed or promised? It isn't paranoia that makes me think we would screwed once we start letting them ban certain guns, it's experience.
But the programs you could provide examples to have never involved amending or repealing a Constitutional Amendment. There's just so far Congress could take gun restrictions before finally having to address the 2nd to put those drastic changes into effect. And there's no way you could get 2/3rd of the states in this nation to agree to that.

 

[darthtang aw]

Ok, this is getting out of hand. so because a crazy person used a gun with an "extended" clip to murder a group of people we are now discussing banning extended clips. even though the number of murders/fatalities that are gun related are minimal when compared to other types of death. The argument is these clips are not needed.
Ok here, we don't need to drive 75 MPH on the freeway. We don't NEED cars that are street legal for commutting to be able to go over 55. So why have an vehicles ungovernored with the ability to go over 55. Here are some statistics.
Institute studies showed that deaths on rural interstates increased 25-30 percent when states began increasing speed limits from 55 to 65 mph in 1987. In 1989, about two-thirds of this increase — 19 percent, or 400 deaths — was attributed to increased speed, the rest to increased travel.13,14,15
A 1999 Institute study of the effects of the 1995 repeal of the national maximum speed limit indicated this trend had continued. Researchers compared the numbers of motor vehicle occupant deaths in 24 states that raised speed limits during late 1995 and 1996 with corresponding fatality counts in the 6 years before the speed limits were changed, as well as fatality counts from 7 states that did not change speed limits. The Institute estimated a 15 percent increase in fatalities on interstates and freeways.16
A 2002 study by researchers at the Land Transport Safety Authority of New Zealand also evaluated the effects of increasing rural interstate speed limits from 65 mph to either 70 or 75 mph. Based on deaths in states that did not change their speed limits, states that increased speed limits to 75 mph experienced 38 percent more deaths per million vehicle miles traveled than expected — an estimated 780 more deaths. States that increased speed limits to 70 mph experienced a 35 percent increase, resulting in approximately 1,100 more deaths.17
A 2009 study examining the long-term effects of the 1995 repeal of the national speed limit found a 3 percent increase in road fatalities attributable to higher speed limits on all road types, with the highest increase of 9 percent on rural interstates. The authors estimated that 12,545 deaths were attributed to increases in speed limits across the US.18
So, since we don't need to drive this fast, lets put a govenor on all vehicles to prevent some deaths.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/120#post_3348771
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/120#post_3348715
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/120#post_3348711
We can keep re-quoting the quotes. By the time we're done, one comment will take up 3 pages.

There's definitely flaws in this new system. I've tried quoting on a single comment, wrote some four line dissertation, hit the 'Submit' button, and nothing comes back. Think the same thing happened to oscar or socal.
To reply to a response from reef just 3 comments back - How am I the one whose paranoid? I made the statement that it's very doubtful you could ever put a complete restriction on firearms of every type imaginable. You're the one who seems fixated on the notion that if they restrict one, that it's a logical conclusion they'll restrict all. I also find it comical how the gun lovers use the 2nd to justify owning these types of weapons in the first place. I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers would have imagined that one day someone would be capable of inventing and producing a firearm that's capable of spitting out 50 rounds of ammunition in 10 seconds. They were still shooting flintlock's back in their days. Technology has afforded us some amazing things. I'm still waiting for the portable phaser to go into mass production. Forget shooting lead. Just give me a handheld device that's capable of incinerating an entire body with the push of a button. I suppose you'd think that type of weapon sould be protected under the 2nd as well?
When it comes right down to it the founders wanted people to be able to stand up to our own government should the need arise which means having the same armaments as any military would at the time. I ain't saying we should allow people to carry automatics with grenade launchers but I see no issue with semis.
Do you really want me to go through all the examples of the government getting their foot in the door with a program and going far beyond what was initially proposed or promised? It isn't paranoia that makes me think we would screwed once we start letting them ban certain guns, it's experience.
But the programs you could provide examples to have never involved amending or repealing a Constitutional Amendment. There's just so far Congress could take gun restrictions before finally having to address the 2nd to put those drastic changes into effect. And there's no way you could get 2/3rd of the states in this nation to agree to that.
So congress could regulate us back to muzzle loading weapons by your assessment, then they have to do an amendment

 

[reefraff]

We don't need alcohol, Alcohol use leads to many more deaths per year than gun clips so lets ban alcohol. Oh, wait, been there done that. Opsees!

 

[scsinet]

We are so hung up over arguing the semantics of whether or not a particular thing, such as extended magazines, are needed...
Here is a point I'm surprised hasn't been made yet...
Simply banning things because they were used in the commission of a crime constitutes a knee jerk and shortsighted reaction, becuase there is no proof that it would have avoided the tragedy, or even reduced the impact of it. Who is to say that this lunatic couldn't have committed this crime wtih (2) 15 round magazines? It takes only seconds to slap another magazine in and hit the slide catch. Or, he could have used two guns. Or 5 revolvers...
That's what everyone always forgets. The fact that he was able to purchase the gun legally in November doesn't mean that if he had not been able to purchase one legally, that it would have stopped him... he could have just purchased one illegally, or he could have worked around it. He could:

• 
  Purchase another type of gun that he can aquire legally
• 
  Gotten someone to purchase it for him
• 
  Broken into a gun store and stole it
  Broken into a law enforcement officer's house and stole one
  Bought one illegally on the street

One will take note that some of the items on the list above are possible even in the event of a total civilian gun ban in this country.
It's impossible to predict just how much would have to stand in a criminal's way to prevent them from committing a crime. It's like someone who has their house broken into. They don't have a security system. Of course, they run out and get one, as if there was some assurance that had they had that security system to begin with, that it would have stopped the burglary from occuring. In reality, there is no such assurance. All it does is make them "feel" more secure when in reality they may not be.
I ask everyone proposing the extended magazine ban on this thread to really consider this question...
If extended magazines had been banned prior to this tragedy, would it have stopped this individual?

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCSInet http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/120#post_3348792
We are so hung up over arguing the semantics of whether or not a particular thing, such as extended magazines, are needed...
Here is a point I'm surprised hasn't been made yet...
Simply banning things because they were used in the commission of a crime constitutes a knee jerk and shortsighted reaction, becuase there is no proof that it would have avoided the tragedy, or even reduced the impact of it. Who is to say that this lunatic couldn't have committed this crime wtih (2) 15 round magazines? It takes only seconds to slap another magazine in and hit the slide catch. Or, he could have used two guns. Or 5 revolvers...
That's what everyone always forgets. The fact that he was able to purchase the gun legally in November doesn't mean that if he had not been able to purchase one legally, that it would have stopped him... he could have just purchased one illegally, or he could have worked around it. He could:

• 
  Purchase another type of gun that he can aquire legally
• 
  Gotten someone to purchase it for him
• 
  Broken into a gun store and stole it
  Broken into a law enforcement officer's house and stole one
  Bought one illegally on the street

One will take note that some of the items on the list above are possible even in the event of a total civilian gun ban in this country.
It's impossible to predict just how much would have to stand in a criminal's way to prevent them from committing a crime. It's like someone who has their house broken into. They don't have a security system. Of course, they run out and get one, as if there was some assurance that had they had that security system to begin with, that it would have stopped the burglary from occuring. In reality, there is no such assurance. All it does is make them "feel" more secure when in reality they may not be.
I ask everyone proposing the extended magazine ban on this thread to really consider this question...
If extended magazines had been banned prior to this tragedy, would it have stopped this individual?
If someone is determined to commit an act like this, they will use every means possible to acquire what they need to carry it out. This was a 22 year old that by all indications, has some very disturbing mental issues. However, he hadn't had any past criminal records that were felonious, otherwise he couldn't have purchased the gun in the first place. If he'd gone into that gun shop and they said, "You need a special license to purchase this 30-round magazine model of Glock", would he have turned around and left, or would he have said, "Fine then just give me the standard Glock and 3 magazines."? Only he can answer that question. If you put the deterrent in place, you won't catch/stop every person who wants to commit a criminal and haneous act like this one. But you could potenially catch some who would be so frustrated with the regulations, they may have second thoughts and change their minds. So what if you have to have an extensive background check and wait two weeks to purchase a specific weapon? If you're a normal law-abiding citizen, what have you got to hide? The 2nd Amendment grants you the right to own firearms. No where in that Amendement does it say "I have the right to have it NOW."

 

[scsinet]

Quote:
If someone is determined to commit an act like this, they will use every means possible to acquire what they need to carry it out. This was a 22 year old that by all indications, has some very disturbing mental issues. However, he hadn't had any past criminal records that were felonious, otherwise he couldn't have purchased the gun in the first place. If he'd gone into that gun shop and they said, "You need a special license to purchase this 30-round magazine model of Glock", would he have turned around and left, or would he have said, "Fine then just give me the standard Glock and 3 magazines."? Only he can answer that question. If you put the deterrent in place, you won't catch/stop every person who wants to commit a criminal and haneous act like this one. But you could potenially catch some who would be so frustrated with the regulations, they may have second thoughts and change their minds. So what if you have to have an extensive background check and wait two weeks to purchase a specific weapon? If you're a normal law-abiding citizen, what have you got to hide? The 2nd Amendment grants you the right to own firearms. No where in that Amendement does it say "I have the right to have it NOW."
In the end, it all comes down into our partial estimation of what a particular invididual may do in a particular situation. I have a hard time believing that someone that has resolved to mass shooting and mass murder will allow something so trivial in comparison as the availability of a 30 round magazine to be the thing that he decides to build a castle of doubt upon. I mean...
Looney Tunes: "Well... okay, I'm pumped. I'm gonna shoot a lot of people, hopefully kill most of them... I'm ready to go! Okay sir, I'll take that 9mm Glock, and gimme one of those cool huge mags that I saw in The Matrix"
Gun Shop Clerk: "Sorry sir, those 30 round mags are illegal, but I this gun comes with two 15 round magazines."
Looney Tunes: **thinking** Hmm... I had really only imagined my atrocity being committed with one of those cool looking huge mags. DAMN YOU LAWMAKERS! I have NO WAY to get past these LAWS! Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way! I'm going to forget this whole thing and re-evaluate my life!
Looney Tunes **Saying**: Okay sir, thanks anyway.
Again, this is my personal estimation, but to me the whole thing sounds pretty far fetched.
As for the two weeks... Personally, I doubt it would have been a dealbreaker for me if I had needed to wait two weeks for any of the guns I've purchased. However, that is not to say that I am in support the idea. A good advocate of rights and liberties fights for the rights and liberties that even he does not have a direct gain by having.
However, this guy purchased this gun in November... it's January right now if I'm not mistaken. Ergo, this guy had more than two weeks to think it over and change his mind. So... how would a two week period have helped here? The only thing a two week period is going to stop is the criminals who lose their daily planner and forget to get their gun at least 15 days prior to when they plan to do their shootout.
I see nothing in bans on extended magazines, waiting periods, yada yada yada that would deter someone intent on committing a crime, and crimes of this nature... nobody comes to the decision to do it lightly or sanely, and in either case, change of mind is unlikely to happen.
But like I said, we're at an impasse. You believe these measures may help, I believe they won't. Neither one of us has any way of knowing if they do, would, or would have in this case.
So in the end, do we err to the side of regulation, where we trivialize people's rights and liberties to justify taken said rights and liberties away, in the name of "security," or do we err on the side of freedoms and liberties, and find other ways to address this kind of violence in our society, that are perhaps more grounded in the concept of more definite impact?

 

[socal57che]

One word....
infringe.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by socal57che http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/120#post_3348814
One word....
infringe.
What right of yours is being "infringed"? How is waiting a specific period of time, and having extensive background checks 'infringing' on your right to purchase a firearm? I have a TS/SCI clearance that allows me to work in specific government facilities. I had to allow the FBI and CIA do a 10 year background on me and my family to get that clearance. Hey, that infringes on my 1st Amendment Rights. I shouldn't have to do that simply for national security. I'm a naturalized American citizen. Just give the clearance to me NOW.
SCSI - Since the enception of the Brady Law, from 1994 through 2008, 1.8 million attempted firearm purchases were blocked by the Brady background check system. For checks done by the FBI in 2008, felons accounted for 56 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 13 percent of denials. Based on this information, that's the potential of 1.8 million crimes not being committed during that timeframe. Could they find other means to find a weapon. Of course. But who knows if they did or didn't. You can sit there and justify your reasoning of "No restrictive gun laws are going to deter a true criminal from getting the weapon you want". But the fact remains, there have been studies done that have shown where known criminals that were incarcerated have stated they didn't commit a worse crime simply because they couldn't obtain a firearm due to waiting periods and background checks. They have testimonies from individuals who stated that they wouldn't have committed a murder or murder attempt if they would have had a "cooling off" period and had to wait a few extra days to buy that firearm. It's interesting how you can equate "freedoms and liberties" to owning and purchasing a firearm. For me, those are skewed priorities.

 

[scsinet]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/120#post_3348872
SCSI - Since the enception of the Brady Law, from 1994 through 2008, 1.8 million attempted firearm purchases were blocked by the Brady background check system. For checks done by the FBI in 2008, felons accounted for 56 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 13 percent of denials. Based on this information, that's the potential of 1.8 million crimes not being committed during that timeframe. Could they find other means to find a weapon. Of course. But who knows if they did or didn't. You can sit there and justify your reasoning of "No restrictive gun laws are going to deter a true criminal from getting the weapon you want". But the fact remains, there have been studies done that have shown where known criminals that were incarcerated have stated they didn't commit a worse crime simply because they couldn't obtain a firearm due to waiting periods and background checks. They have testimonies from individuals who stated that they wouldn't have committed a murder or murder attempt if they would have had a "cooling off" period and had to wait a few extra days to buy that firearm. It's interesting how you can equate "freedoms and liberties" to owning and purchasing a firearm. For me, those are skewed priorities.
First, I do not equate freedoms and liberties to owning and purchasing a firearm. What I said was that owning and purchasing a firearm is an a freedom or liberty we have. Don't put words in my mouth to make me sound like I'm saying that the only freedoms and liberties out there pertain to firearms.
If your figures and citations are correct, then they represent sound logic behind your argument. That's fair.
As I said, from my personal experience, waiting periods are not something that I'd consider detrimental to my enjoyment of firearms. That is not to say though that I will not fight to protect freedoms and liberties that are being threatened for insufficient reasons. That's the problem with too many people, especially those on one side of this particular issue... people are too willing to forfeit rights that they don't see as impactful to them. People need to understand that any encroachment on their freedoms is just that, and the fact that [the perverbial] YOU don't have a need for guns, it does not mean that YOU should lay down and accept the seizure of rights by the government.
Freedom is worth fighting for, whether you choose to enjoy a particular freedom or not. I don't drink (at least not much), but you can bet your next paycheck that I will fight to protect people's right to do it, even though I don't believe that people NEED alcohol.
It's also worth clarifying that my position on the matter and my participation in this thread is because I do not believe that this incident stands as reason to enact further regulations as have been discussed here. I don't believe that there is enough evidence (in fact there is none) to conclude that a two week waiting period nor a ban on certain magazines would have changed anything in this case.
I don't know why you stated statistics on background checks as an agument to what I'm saying... I didn't say anything about background checks or any existing laws. I've had to pass a check for every weapon I've purchased, and I'm fine with it.
Although I've mentioned positions on some of these matters in other threads, you'll note that in this thread, I did not say that I'm necessarily for or against any of the discussed regulation (waiting periods, extended magazine bans, etc). What I'm trying to say is that this incident does not serve as a credible reason to do any of those things. Sensible gun laws, based in logical, factual, and CONSTITUTIONAL foundation have their place. Knee jerk laws passed because of one incident are not sensible.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/120#post_3348872
Quote:
Originally Posted by socal57che http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/120#post_3348814
One word....
infringe.
What right of yours is being "infringed"? How is waiting a specific period of time, and having extensive background checks 'infringing' on your right to purchase a firearm? I have a TS/SCI clearance that allows me to work in specific government facilities. I had to allow the FBI and CIA do a 10 year background on me and my family to get that clearance. Hey, that infringes on my 1st Amendment Rights. I shouldn't have to do that simply for national security. I'm a naturalized American citizen. Just give the clearance to me NOW.
SCSI - Since the enception of the Brady Law, from 1994 through 2008, 1.8 million attempted firearm purchases were blocked by the Brady background check system. For checks done by the FBI in 2008, felons accounted for 56 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 13 percent of denials. Based on this information, that's the potential of 1.8 million crimes not being committed during that timeframe. Could they find other means to find a weapon. Of course. But who knows if they did or didn't. You can sit there and justify your reasoning of "No restrictive gun laws are going to deter a true criminal from getting the weapon you want". But the fact remains, there have been studies done that have shown where known criminals that were incarcerated have stated they didn't commit a worse crime simply because they couldn't obtain a firearm due to waiting periods and background checks. They have testimonies from individuals who stated that they wouldn't have committed a murder or murder attempt if they would have had a "cooling off" period and had to wait a few extra days to buy that firearm. It's interesting how you can equate "freedoms and liberties" to owning and purchasing a firearm. For me, those are skewed priorities.
Care to site me the number of individuals who tried to illegally purchase a firearm over that time that were prosecuted?
I will gladly give you a 10 day waiting period to buy a gun if you accept the same waiting period before a woman can have an elective abortion. I am willing to put up with a little inconvenience it it keeps the guy who just found out his best friend was doing his wife from running out and getting a gun before he's had a chance to cool down. Do you think your side will be willing to make a woman wait 10 days to terminate the pregnancy if it might give a woman a chance explore options other than killing her fetus?

 

[oscardeuce]

Quote:Originally Posted by WangoTango http:///forum/thread/383022/gifford-shooting-let-the-left-wing-spin-begin/120#post_3348690
Whose gonna man up to it? Who speaks for "the Democrats." Who speaks for Sarah Palin? Is every single Democrat supposed to apologize? Is every Republican? I honestly don't think the majority of politicians are that pissed at the other side and can speak for what their party portrays. The ones that are/do are the same ones interviewed on MSNBC and Fox News every night. Both sides (of the news media) to a certain extent have been giving the "why can't we be friends" talk and "lets tone things down" and neither of them have which should really come as no surprise. I'd like to think that anyone on any side whether they're a pundit or politician would have the balls to man up to stupid things they've done and said, but they havn't. You think Bill O'Reily or Chris Matthews will? People unfortunately are pointing fingers at Sarah Palin, and obviously she had nothing to do with this happening. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that. She has gone beyond talking as a politician frustrated with her opponents and has crossed into the news media spotlight. She is not a politician anymore. She doesn't speak for the Republicans anymore, she speaks for herself. She is accountable for what SHE does and says not the Republicans. It'd be the same if she was a Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist, Ice Cream party. Any other commentator is responsible for what they say, not their party. I mean hell even Olbermann apologized for saying bad stuff and fessed up to donating money to Giffords. He's gone right back to the typical "left vs right" too. If politicians do and say stuff that the people don't like, they don't get re-elected. We're stuck with people like Palin, O'Reily, Olbermann, and whoever. Why are they going after Palin's map and not the Democrat's one? I don't know. Maybe everyone forgot about it, or maybe whoever made it isn't on TV 24/7 with the same message. She's putting herself out there, so she should be able to take the heat for it. Even if she just says "sorry guys" to get everyone off her back, but no. She peeks out from under the bus to tell the driver to back up and pull forward again. And by that reference I do not mean that I wish she was repeatedly run over by a bus...
 
The sheriff did make some stretches that he probably shouldn't have made. That is not a reason for him to be vilified by people like O'Reily and the blondie squad (or Beck, or Olbermann, or Maddow or Santa Clause). I don't know his political affiliation nor do I care, nor does it matter.
 
 
What the sheriff says matters to the prosecution of the killer. A good defense lawyer will turn everything he has said against him.