Mom's Demand Action- no more dead children

[martybegan]

Yes, well, you might have a point there.

The other point is, even if we ban "assault rifles" Lanza could have done the same thing he did at that school with a pair of revolvers and quick loaders, as it took the police over 10+ minutes to arrive at the school.

Any "assualt weapon" ban would not have prevented sandy hook.

I want them illegal.

People buy rifles meant to kill dozens of people at once? In America? And high-capacity magazines to kill a hundred at a time? I want that illegal. That's just basically evil. There's no reasonable defense of that kind of thinking.

And the assault rifle and high-capacity magazine has PLAINLY become the default crazy-weapon. It has to go.

Then change the 2nd amendment.

Also he didnt "buy" it, he stole it. In colorado the idiot's 100 round mag jammed and he went to his shotgun/handguns, something you DONT want to ban. In virigna tech? Handgun. Fort hood? handgun.

The default "non crazy" weapon is also handgun, the one skells use to kill each other in inner cities every day.

A gun cannot be evil. It is a tube that is desgined to launch a projectile using explosive combustion.

 

[Againsheila]

Yes, well, you might have a point there.

The other point is, even if we ban "assault rifles" Lanza could have done the same thing he did at that school with a pair of revolvers and quick loaders, as it took the police over 10+ minutes to arrive at the school.

Any "assualt weapon" ban would not have prevented sandy hook.

I want them illegal.

People buy rifles meant to kill dozens of people at once? In America? And high-capacity magazines to kill a hundred at a time? I want that illegal. That's just basically evil. There's no reasonable defense of that kind of thinking.

And the assault rifle and high-capacity magazine has PLAINLY become the default crazy-weapon. It has to go.

And so we should make them illegally just because you want them illegal? I want reverse Mohawks illegal, see how much good that does?

 

[PaulS1950]

I want them illegal.

People buy rifles meant to kill dozens of people at once? In America? And high-capacity magazines to kill a hundred at a time? I want that illegal. That's just basically evil. There's no reasonable defense of that kind of thinking.

And the assault rifle and high-capacity magazine has PLAINLY become the default crazy-weapon. It has to go.

This is exactly why the second amendment was put in place; to protect our rights against those who would decide that they wanted to remove the right.

You can't make the weapons protected by the second amendment illegal. NOTE: I said protected by not issued by. We don't get the right to bear arms from the second amendment - it is a civil right. Just as you can't do away with the first amendment because you want islam banned - or because you think that people shouldn't have the right to say stupid things like guns are evil and "I want them illegal".

You like the right to say what you want but you want to remove the right that I have to use the same force against an attacker that he is using against me.

So what! you think guns are evil - I think your idea of banning them is evil. Neither of those concepts can change our rights so I guess the best we can ask for is to deal with it.

If you don't like guns then don't buy them. I happen to like to shoot and I do so very well. So I buy guns and I have a number of them. I even have two military infantry rifles - designed to wound and kill on the battlefield. One of my brothers has a military gun that was designed to kill people on the battlefield too - I suppose that makes you think we are evil but in the 64 years that I have owned guns I have never killed a single person and neither has my brother. I guess all my guns are defective because the only things they have put bullets into is paper and a few game animals.

Just because you feel that guns are bad doesn't give you the power to take them away and you don't have the right to take them either. No right and no power - you sound pathetic in your irrational fears and proclaimations.

 

[PaulS1950]

Circe,
Sometimes I get in a hurry to post and I get out of hand. I appologize for my outburst. I have sympathy for your fear. You take a gun that was used 3 times out of many hundreds of killings last year and decide that it is the new "...default crazy-weapon" and you fear it so much that you think anyone who has one is out to kill hundreds of people. I understand it may look scary but I have to tell you that either of my hunting rifles are capable of doing much more damage at much greater distances than those puny 22 caliber "assault weapons" of which you are so affraid. My rifles will kill at 1000 yards or more - if someone were to use one of them and go on a killing spree they could kill hundreds and never be seen or even heard. The bullets travel so fast that the person shot would be dead before the sound of the shot got to them.

Those puny little 22 caliber guns are no more dangerous than the .223 Remington pistol that have - it shoots the same ammo and a lot more accurate than the run of the mill military gun that fires the same ammo.

I really feel sorry that you are so affraid of things that are so ordinary just because they are used in three extraordinary events. You have worked your fear up to a point where you are affraid of not only the puny little gun but anyone who owns one or anyone who collects them. I truely feel sorry for you.

 

[Circe]

Then change the 2nd amendment.

Hey, we're working on it as fast as we can!!

The Second Amendment needs limits and already has a whole lot of limits: you can throw grenades in all the shooter games, but not in real life. We did have the assault weapons banned, but somehow the gun nuts got them back, wow, what an incredible mistake that was, and I think nearly everyone has got that real clear!

We need to limit the Second Amendment more, that's all. It looks like it's going pretty well. We can either do it now or we can do it after one or two more of these mass shootings. It's obvious the crazies are competing for high numbers of dead by using the big mass-shooter guns, so we'll ban those, I hope and assume.

 

[Circe]

I want reverse Mohawks illegal, see how much good that does?

Okay, you may have a point there......Personally, I think you should set your sights a little higher, but if that's the sort of public concern you think a lot about, that's fine with me. Perhaps you can get up a group of concerned citizens and get "ahead" of the issue.

 

[martybegan]

Then change the 2nd amendment.

Hey, we're working on it as fast as we can!!

The Second Amendment needs limits and already has a whole lot of limits: you can throw grenades in all the shooter games, but not in real life. We did have the assault weapons banned, but somehow the gun nuts got them back, wow, what an incredible mistake that was, and I think nearly everyone has got that real clear!

We need to limit the Second Amendment more, that's all. It looks like it's going pretty well. We can either do it now or we can do it after one or two more of these mass shootings. It's obvious the crazies are competing for high numbers of dead by using the big mass-shooter guns, so we'll ban those, I hope and assume.

I assume you also agree that any restriction placed on citizens has to be placed on the police as well. The police are peace officers, not soldiers.

And again, most deaths, even multiple deaths, are via handgun.

 

[Circe]

I assume you also agree that any restriction placed on citizens has to be placed on the police as well. The police are peace officers, not soldiers.

And again, most deaths, even multiple deaths, are via handgun.

No, I don't care what the police are armed with. Law and order is important to me, obviously. That's the problem: the private gun nuts are going crazy and shooting up the country.

Okay, you are right that most deaths are via handguns, including the mass shootings, even recently, as the tide has turned toward the psychotics using the glamour guns. Still, several of the mass shootings last year at schools and workplaces did employ handguns.

So what about that? I think you've got a problem, frankly. Well, me too, if I want to keep self-defense guns. ("Assault" is definitely not self-defense.) You know as well as I do, I expect, the recent history of Australia and Britain where the population turned decisively and suddenly against pretty much any guns being in the hand of private citizens because of mass shootings by psychotics. IMO, this country is just way too big and wild still for guns to be gone. Leaving aside criminals, on the farm we literally use guns multiple times a year, though thank God we've never had to shoot at a person. But things happen, you know? The weirdest ever in my experience was the large paper hornet's nest hanging 12 feet up from a branch RIGHT over the vegetable garden. That took a shotgun.

Gun collectors have ranged themselves on the wrong side. You've reflexively joined up with Adam Lanza and James Holmes, and how much sense does THAT make??? Darn. If you want to protect private gun ownership in the United States, I suggest you find a different side to be on! Because the psycho side isn't going to give you any creds.

The challenge is to find a way to keep guns in private hands by stopping this really awful epidemic of psycho shooting of small children and teens. I'd say the gun fanciers probably should try to help, not to hinder this endeavor. We've got a serious situation here, and it's going to impact gun owners, if things go the way they did in Australia and Britain.

 

[martybegan]

I assume you also agree that any restriction placed on citizens has to be placed on the police as well. The police are peace officers, not soldiers.

And again, most deaths, even multiple deaths, are via handgun.

No, I don't care what the police are armed with. Law and order is important to me, obviously. That's the problem: the private gun nuts are going crazy and shooting up the country.

Okay, you are right that most deaths are via handguns, including the mass shootings, even recently, as the tide has turned toward the psychotics using the glamour guns. Still, several of the mass shootings last year at schools and workplaces did employ handguns.

So what about that? I think you've got a problem, frankly. Well, me too, if I want to keep self-defense guns. ("Assault" is definitely not self-defense.) You know as well as I do, I expect, the recent history of Australia and Britain where the population turned decisively and suddenly against pretty much any guns being in the hand of private citizens because of mass shootings by psychotics. IMO, this country is just way too big and wild still for guns to be gone. Leaving aside criminals, on the farm we literally use guns multiple times a year, though thank God we've never had to shoot at a person. But things happen, you know? The weirdest ever in my experience was the large paper hornet's nest hanging 12 feet up from a branch RIGHT over the vegetable garden. That took a shotgun.

Gun collectors have ranged themselves on the wrong side. You've reflexively joined up with Adam Lanza and James Holmes, and how much sense does THAT make??? Darn. If you want to protect private gun ownership in the United States, I suggest you find a different side to be on! Because the psycho side isn't going to give you any creds.

The challenge is to find a way to keep guns in private hands by stopping this really awful epidemic of psycho shooting of small children and teens. I'd say the gun fanciers probably should try to help, not to hinder this endeavor. We've got a serious situation here, and it's going to impact gun owners, if things go the way they did in Australia and Britain.

and yet murder in general is up in both places. Assaults as well, as the yobs now know the person they are attacking is unarmed, and they have some time before the police (also unarmed ) show up.

The risk of being in a mass shooting is so miniscule, and only the sensationalism of the current media is what makes it appear to be SOME HUGE PROBLEM. Again you ignore the two facts that 1) lanza could have done what he did with revolvers 2)the very gun you want to ban and the magazines you want to ban malfunctioned on holmes and 3) Both virginia tech and Fort Hood were done by handguns.

Any ban you propose would have done NOTHING to prevent the crimes I listed. Yet you adhere to it like a security blanket, that if only we BANSCARYGUNS crimes of that sort will just dissapear into thin air.

Also, where can I find writings of Lanza and Holmes discussing and defending gun rights? Lumping law abiding gun owners with them is no better than a Godwin's law association of people you disagree with with Nazi's and Hitler. poor form.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

1 million moms is an extreme religious conservative group who spends all day being offended by everything happening around them. They have zero credibility to demand anything from anyone.

For the most part, I agree but its hard to find fault with anyone who is against the shooting of more children. Its the people who refuse to even consider ways to mitigate the enormous number of gun deaths - THOSE are the people who have no credibility.

 

[Circe]

and yet murder in general is up in both places. Assaults as well, as the yobs now know the person they are attacking is unarmed, and they have some time before the police (also unarmed ) show up.

Okay, obviously that is a good argument for keeping guns possible. I know that. So HELP, don't hinder.

The risk of being in a mass shooting is so miniscule, and only the sensationalism of the current media is what makes it appear to be SOME HUGE PROBLEM.

Hello, you and a few others may be the only people who don't think this is SOME HUGE PROBLEM. Of course it's a huge problem; if it weren't, we wouldn't be constantly discussing it. I suggest you get serious and recognize it's a problem for you! Are you aware there are Congressional hearing going on RIGHT NOW on the issue of banning at least some guns?

Lumping law abiding gun owners with them is no better than a Godwin's law association of people you disagree with with Nazi's and Hitler.

Oh, my. Please cite the number of my post where I associated gun owners with Hitler. [Sigh] Yes, you are siding with the psychos by minimizing their shooting sprees as no real problem. I think you have picked the wrong side, bigtime. Who can possibly consider gun collectors as "good guys" if you are always saying that mass shootings are "no big problem"? This is a crazy position to take! Of course it's a big problem! How can you possibly call Sandy Hook not a big problem?? All those little children with their heads shot to hamburger! It's why we're talking about all this!

You need to find a way out of this psycho problem. Otherwise there's going to be an Andre Breivik-scale shooting of a whole school of kids, and you are simply going to get run right over by mass public reaction. Me, too. This needs to be solved, or there's going to be trouble.

 

[martybegan]

and yet murder in general is up in both places. Assaults as well, as the yobs now know the person they are attacking is unarmed, and they have some time before the police (also unarmed ) show up.

Okay, obviously that is a good argument for keeping guns possible. I know that. So HELP, don't hinder.

The risk of being in a mass shooting is so miniscule, and only the sensationalism of the current media is what makes it appear to be SOME HUGE PROBLEM.

Hello, you and a few others may be the only people who don't think this is SOME HUGE PROBLEM. Of course it's a huge problem; if it weren't, we wouldn't be constantly discussing it. I suggest you get serious and recognize it's a problem for you! Are you aware there are Congressional hearing going on RIGHT NOW on the issue of banning at least some guns?

Lumping law abiding gun owners with them is no better than a Godwin's law association of people you disagree with with Nazi's and Hitler.

Oh, my. Please cite the number of my post where I associated gun owners with Hitler. [Sigh] Yes, you are siding with the psychos by minimizing their shooting sprees as no real problem. I think you have picked the wrong side, bigtime. Who can possibly consider gun collectors as "good guys" if you are always saying that mass shootings are "no big problem"? This is a crazy position to take! Of course it's a big problem! How can you possibly call Sandy Hook not a big problem?? All those little children with their heads shot to hamburger! It's why we're talking about all this!

You need to find a way out of this psycho problem. Otherwise there's going to be an Andre Breivik-scale shooting of a whole school of kids, and you are simply going to get run right over by mass public reaction. Me, too. This needs to be solved, or there's going to be trouble.

Again, he could have used a revolver to what he did. The type of gun had no effect. He was a 20 year old armed crazy male in a building with unarmed women and children.

By your logic one of the other ways to prevent this is to ban Psychos. If we ban them, I guess we can prevent them from going all nuts, right?

10's of millions of people own these weapons, and only a handful are used for ill will every year. Yet your solution is to prevent everyone from owning one because of the lawlessness of some.

and please re read my post. Your "gun owners" = lanza/holmes is LOGICALLY equivalent to "People X" = Nazi's/hitler. That was my point.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

And, its certainly a "huge problem" for those who are murdered. And, watching the hearings, watching the families of the dead - how can anyone say media is sensationalizing this?

Every day, more dead children - there is nothing that can be said that "sensationalizes" that.

 

[martybegan]

And, its certainly a "huge problem" for those who are murdered. And, watching the hearings, watching the families of the dead - how can anyone say media is sensationalizing this?

Every day, more dead children - there is nothing that can be said that "sensationalizes" that.

Appeal to emotion is no way to run a government.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

And, its certainly a "huge problem" for those who are murdered. And, watching the hearings, watching the families of the dead - how can anyone say media is sensationalizing this?

Every day, more dead children - there is nothing that can be said that "sensationalizes" that.

Appeal to emotion is no way to run a government.

Dead children makes some people emotional.

Others feel nothing at all.

Most people are not cold blooded. Most people do have emotions. Most people love their own children and most people's hearts break for the parents whose children have been shot dead or wounded.

Some people feel nothing at all.

For those who do care about children, their own and others, nothing is "sensational" or too emotional. Most people will do anything to protect children.

 

[martybegan]

And, its certainly a "huge problem" for those who are murdered. And, watching the hearings, watching the families of the dead - how can anyone say media is sensationalizing this?

Every day, more dead children - there is nothing that can be said that "sensationalizes" that.

Appeal to emotion is no way to run a government.

Dead children makes some people emotional.

Others feel nothing at all.

Most people are not cold blooded. Most people do have emotions. Most people love their own children and most people's hearts break for the parents whose children have been shot dead or wounded.

Some people feel nothing at all.

For those who do care about children, their own and others, nothing is "sensational" or too emotional. Most people will do anything to protect children.

So if its "for the children" We can violate the consitution, punish those who have committed no crime of their own, and basically roll back freedom?

Despotism is OK if its for a good cause?

 

[M14 Shooter]

And, its certainly a "huge problem" for those who are murdered. And, watching the hearings, watching the families of the dead - how can anyone say media is sensationalizing this?

Every day, more dead children - there is nothing that can be said that "sensationalizes" that.

Appeal to emotion is no way to run a government.

Be fair now - if you take away appeals to emotion and appeals to popularity, you take away the entirety of their arguments.

The parts that do not down in ignorance, anyway.

 

[AmyNation]

1 million moms is an extreme religious conservative group who spends all day being offended by everything happening around them. They have zero credibility to demand anything from anyone.

For the most part, I agree but its hard to find fault with anyone who is against the shooting of more children. Its the people who refuse to even consider ways to mitigate the enormous number of gun deaths - THOSE are the people who have no credibility.

Everyone is against the shooting of more children, we merely disagree on the best ways to stop it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Saying that background checks, safer schools and no more high capacity clips is unconstitutional is blatantly appealing to emotion and ignorance. I have not seen any sign of the Constitution being violated. Just the opposite. If that were the case, I would be against it. OTOH, I'm not a Constitutional scholar nor am I a Supreme Court Justice.

Everyone is against the shooting of more children, we merely disagree on the best ways to stop it.

When car makers were forced to make cars safer, the hue and cry was that the expense of seat belts and airbags would drive them out of business because the cost of cars would go up and people would not buy them. Didn't happen. Same thing will happen with guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1 million moms is an extreme religious conservative group who spends all day being offended by everything happening around them. They have zero credibility to demand anything from anyone.

For the most part, I agree but its hard to find fault with anyone who is against the shooting of more children. Its the people who refuse to even consider ways to mitigate the enormous number of gun deaths - THOSE are the people who have no credibility.

Everyone is against the shooting of more children, we merely disagree on the best ways to stop it.

If you don't agree with them and what they want to do, it's because you don't care.
My ex-wife -still- thinks this - and still wonders why she's my ex-wife.