Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Add to this argument another psychopath who given today's policy would have been able to buy the assault weapon. Now think of the consequences.
"Eric manufactured three more pipe bombs: the Charlie batch. Then he halted production until December. What he needed was guns. And that was becoming a problem.
Eric had been looking into the Brady Bill. Congress had passed the law restricting the purchase of most popular semiautomatic machine guns in 1993. A federal system of instant background checks would soon go into effect. Eric was going to have a hard time getting around that.
"Fuck you Brady!" Eric wrote in his journal. All he wanted was a couple of guns - "and thanks to your fucking bill I will probably not get any!" He wanted them only for personal protection, he joked: "Its not like I'm some psycho who would go on a shooting spree. fuckers."
Eric frequently made his research do double duty for both schoolwork and his master plan. He wrote up a short research assignment on the Brady Bill that week. It was a good idea in theory, he said, aside from the loopholes. The biggest problem was that checks applied only to licensed dealers, not private dealers. So two-thirds of the licensed dealers had just gone private. "The FBI just shot themselves in the foot," he concluded."
Eric was rational about his firepower. "As of this date I have enough explosives to kill about 100 people," he wrote. With axes, bayonets, and assorted blades, he could maybe take out ten more. That was as far as hand to-hand combat would get him. A hundred and ten people. "that just isn't enough!"
"Guns!" the entry concluded. "I need guns! Give me some fucking firearms! " p.280 'Columbine' by Dave Cullen [bold added]
So rather than deny the insane, the gun lovers simply rationalize that freedom to bear arms extends to everyone regardless of public safety concerns. They must therefore believe that shooting sprees and gun deaths are nothing more than the price society must pay to maintain their freedom to own weapons suited for military use, not sport or defense.
Should all Americans agree with this stilted logic, or can common sense and public safety hold any priority at all?
Do you approve of the NYPD's Stop and Frisk policy?So rather than deny the insane, the gun lovers simply rationalize that freedom to bear arms extends to everyone regardless of public safety concerns. They must therefore believe that shooting sprees and gun deaths are nothing more than the price society must pay to maintain their freedom to own weapons suited for military use, not sport or defense.
Should all Americans agree with this stilted logic, or can common sense and public safety hold any priority at all?
The insane are denied,you just have to make the list,and your rational is no different.
In this country we once were considered innocent until proven otherwise,your kind want it the other way around,funny thing about the constitution,its say otherwise.
freedom to own weapons suited for military use, not sport or defense.
Then you post this nonsense,proving ignorance on the subject.
And yes a free nation does come with a few risks,you will never stop ALL the nut cases ever.
The guy that killed 13 people in Binghamton NY a few years back,was approved by the local sheriff to have a pistol permit,and NY is not easy to get one.Didn't mean a thing now did it.
The bottom line ,we have a constitutional right to own guns its that simple.
Do you approve of the NYPD's Stop and Frisk policy?So rather than deny the insane, the gun lovers simply rationalize that freedom to bear arms extends to everyone regardless of public safety concerns. They must therefore believe that shooting sprees and gun deaths are nothing more than the price society must pay to maintain their freedom to own weapons suited for military use, not sport or defense.
Should all Americans agree with this stilted logic, or can common sense and public safety hold any priority at all?
The insane are denied,you just have to make the list,and your rational is no different.
In this country we once were considered innocent until proven otherwise,your kind want it the other way around,funny thing about the constitution,its say otherwise.
freedom to own weapons suited for military use, not sport or defense.
Then you post this nonsense,proving ignorance on the subject.
And yes a free nation does come with a few risks,you will never stop ALL the nut cases ever.
The guy that killed 13 people in Binghamton NY a few years back,was approved by the local sheriff to have a pistol permit,and NY is not easy to get one.Didn't mean a thing now did it.
The bottom line ,we have a constitutional right to own guns its that simple.
NYPD's Stop and Frisk restricts rights under the fourth amendment. Just as not being permitted to shout "FIRE!" in a theater restricts rights under the 1st. Flexibility was found to serve public safety interests in both cases. Is the second amendment amenable to such flexibility, or must we suffer the consequences of a society awash with deadly weapons?Do you approve of the NYPD's Stop and Frisk policy?The insane are denied,you just have to make the list,and your rational is no different.
In this country we once were considered innocent until proven otherwise,your kind want it the other way around,funny thing about the constitution,its say otherwise.
freedom to own weapons suited for military use, not sport or defense.
Then you post this nonsense,proving ignorance on the subject.
And yes a free nation does come with a few risks,you will never stop ALL the nut cases ever.
The guy that killed 13 people in Binghamton NY a few years back,was approved by the local sheriff to have a pistol permit,and NY is not easy to get one.Didn't mean a thing now did it.
The bottom line ,we have a constitutional right to own guns its that simple.
Relevance???!!
And no I don't for that matter
Okay, throwdown time, Gun Whacks.
James "Joker Holmes. Crazy as batshit. Was able to buy and AR-15 and a drum magazine that held up to 100 rounds.
Everyone in his life knew he was batshit crazy.
Why should this person have the freedom to buy a gun.
No distractions about "founding fathers" or "he would have just gotten one illegally".
Please explain why THIS GUY should be allowed to buy a gun.
NYPD's Stop and Frisk restricts rights under the fourth amendment. Just as not being permitted to shout "FIRE!" in a theater restricts rights under the 1st. Flexibility was found to serve public safety interests in both cases. Is the second amendment amenable to such flexibility, or must we suffer the consequences of a society awash with deadly weapons?Do you approve of the NYPD's Stop and Frisk policy?
Relevance???!!
And no I don't for that matter
Okay, throwdown time, Gun Whacks.
James "Joker Holmes. Crazy as batshit. Was able to buy and AR-15 and a drum magazine that held up to 100 rounds.
Everyone in his life knew he was batshit crazy.
Why should this person have the freedom to buy a gun.
No distractions about "founding fathers" or "he would have just gotten one illegally".
Please explain why THIS GUY should be allowed to buy a gun.
NYPD's Stop and Frisk restricts rights under the fourth amendment. Just as not being permitted to shout "FIRE!" in a theater restricts rights under the 1st. Flexibility was found to serve public safety interests in both cases. Is the second amendment amenable to such flexibility, or must we suffer the consequences of a society awash with deadly weapons?Do you approve of the NYPD's Stop and Frisk policy?
Relevance???!!
And no I don't for that matter
NYPD's Stop and Frisk restricts rights under the fourth amendment. Just as not being permitted to shout "FIRE!" in a theater restricts rights under the 1st. Flexibility was found to serve public safety interests in both cases. Is the second amendment amenable to such flexibility, or must we suffer the consequences of a society awash with deadly weapons?Do you approve of the NYPD's Stop and Frisk policy?
Relevance???!!
And no I don't for that matter
It's always a sticky wicket to ascribe motive to a political group. It seldom reveals truth, and all too often serves only to obfuscate and distract. No one but criminals and illegals and crazies want to have absolutely no restrictions on gun ownership.
Conservatives see the problem, but approach solutions from a different path. They want to be assured that their rights are not infringed, but they provide no solution to the problems of gun violence other than a call to arms.
...I just wish some gun lover would offer up some common sense solution and not the same old 'stick 'em up' responses.
Okay, throwdown time, Gun Whacks.
James "Joker Holmes. Crazy as batshit. Was able to buy and AR-15 and a drum magazine that held up to 100 rounds.
Everyone in his life knew he was batshit crazy.
Why should this person have the freedom to buy a gun.
No distractions about "founding fathers" or "he would have just gotten one illegally".
Please explain why THIS GUY should be allowed to buy a gun.
Because mental health records are not provided nor required for background checks. This law needs to be changed but the left doesn't want it changed.
He shouldn't have been allowed to.
Based upon why? Why should he have lost his RIGHTS before he committed a crime?
Hindsight is great. Too bad it only comes after the event.
Poor example.NYPD's Stop and Frisk restricts rights under the fourth amendment. Just as not being permitted to shout "FIRE!" in a theater restricts rights under the 1st. Flexibility was found to serve public safety interests in both cases. Is the second amendment amenable to such flexibility, or must we suffer the consequences of a society awash with deadly weapons?Do you approve of the NYPD's Stop and Frisk policy?
Relevance???!!
And no I don't for that matter
Plastic forks?
Pens?
Pencils?
BBQ shishkers?
A shovel?
hatchet?
How do you define an "assault weapon" Nosmo? Is it a "scary" looking gun? Is it something like you saw on television? What exactly is a "High capacity magazine"?
When fruitcake walked into the movie theater he had a bag full of guns and a room full of targets. If he had a couple of shotguns (legal even in your utopian world) he could still have killed just as many, if not more (due to increased lethality at close range).
Same thing with many of the school shootings.
Oh, yeah, and then there was the nutcase who stabbed everyone in the island camp in Norway (??)...are you going to ban knives as well?
Grow up. Bad things are going to happen to people no matter how many rules you put in place.
I define assault weapons as:
1) A firearm with a semi-automatic firing system.
2) A firearm capable of being fitted with a high capacity magazine*
*High capacity magazine~ a clip or mechanism that feeds more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition into the chamber.
These are the accoutrement that make "mass shootings" "mass shootings".
These are weapons designed for a theater of war, not a Cineplex in the suburbs. They have no legitimate place on our streets. They belong in "well regulated militias" (a phrase so easily dismissed by gun lovers).
And there's the slender reed gun lovers all too often try feebly to hang their arguments upon: would you ban knives as well? The corollary often extends to cars, swimming pools, hatchets and other tools not designed to throw lethal lead out at amazing rapidity.
How do you define an "assault weapon" Nosmo? Is it a "scary" looking gun? Is it something like you saw on television? What exactly is a "High capacity magazine"?
When fruitcake walked into the movie theater he had a bag full of guns and a room full of targets. If he had a couple of shotguns (legal even in your utopian world) he could still have killed just as many, if not more (due to increased lethality at close range).
Same thing with many of the school shootings.
Oh, yeah, and then there was the nutcase who stabbed everyone in the island camp in Norway (??)...are you going to ban knives as well?
Grow up. Bad things are going to happen to people no matter how many rules you put in place.
I define assault weapons as:
1) A firearm with a semi-automatic firing system.
2) A firearm capable of being fitted with a high capacity magazine*
*High capacity magazine~ a clip or mechanism that feeds more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition into the chamber.
These are the accoutrement that make "mass shootings" "mass shootings".
These are weapons designed for a theater of war, not a Cineplex in the suburbs. They have no legitimate place on our streets. They belong in "well regulated militias" (a phrase so easily dismissed by gun lovers).
And there's the slender reed gun lovers all too often try feebly to hang their arguments upon: would you ban knives as well? The corollary often extends to cars, swimming pools, hatchets and other tools not designed to throw lethal lead out at amazing rapidity.
I own one of these:
It will take hi capacity -14 mags with a slight modification. Does that make it scarier? Is it an "assault weapon"
This rifle will accept 5, 10, 20 and 30 round magazines. Is IT an assault weapon?
Is this an assault weapon? It's scary looking. It can use 10, 20 and 30 round magazines.
