In the aftermath of the recent mass shootings around the country, the National Rifle Assn (NRA) has come out with yet another ad aimed this time at the President's school age daughters. The ad, later pulled after criticism from conservatives such as Joe Scarborough purported to connect the Presidents use of Secret Service protection for his children at school as hypocritical to the rest of Americans who supposedly face the same type of threat.
Scarborough related on his Morning Joe show via Media Matters: Scarborough, who as a Congressman was a strong supporter of the NRA, responded to the ad, asking "what's wrong with these people?" He continued, pointing out that once Obama decided to run for president, his children "have targets on their backs." Scarborough also said that the NRA is now a "fringe organization with millions of mainstream members." He concluded by saying the ad was "frightening and over the line."
The NRA wasn't the only dog whistle being blown, El Rushbo was also in on the act:
Comparing the executive order signing yesterday with children standing around the President, Limbaugh bellowed: "The children's as human shield show" Others collaborating with Rush on twitter includes FOX radio's Todd Starnes who yapped:
Another spare parts talker, FOX' Tammy Bruce tweeted "Really? How about Obama using dead children as pawns?"
Republicans are threatening to impeach Obama over executive action on gun control, but many presidents have issued executive orders on gun control, including George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
Executive orders concerning a ban on assault weapons is nothing new. In 1989 after a mass schoolyard shooting in Stockton Calif, then President George HW Bush signed an executive order banning the importation of certain semi-automatic . This was based on the 1968 gun control act.
1952 Supreme Court ruled Executive Orders cannot be used to make new laws. However, Executive orders can be used to manage the enforcement of an existing law such as the Gun Control act of 1968. Both the 1989 signing and President Clinton's signing in 1998 banning 50 semiautomatic weapons that were modified due to "sporting purposes" exemptions.
The President could also use another existing law to sign additional orders. The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934,(after the St Valentines Day Massacre,FDR signed) which levied a tax on the transfer of firearms. The President could use an executive order to institute a database and background checks centered on the sale of firearms; in other words, managing an existing law.
I oppose seat belt laws and speed limits because these measures do "nothing-- zip-- zero-- nada--" to prevent auto accidents. After all, we've had these laws in place for years and still people are killed in car crashes every day. The only solution to a car hitting you is a car that hits back even harder.
Posted by: Walt | January 17, 2013 at 10:20 AM
I oppose Ford F series trucks, because you can mow down more people on a sidewalk with a F-150 than you can with a Ford Fiesta.
These arguments are absurd. The problem is the people. I am pro-large clips. I am pro-assault weapons. In fact, I wouldn't even be upset if people had more powerful fully automatic machine guns. Millions of people own asssault weapons, yet there are very very few problems. Liberals are afraid of the wrong thing. They should be afraid of the nut jobs, not honest people carrying guns. Laws don't make dishonest people honest. Laws don't make crazy people sane. There are thousands of ways to kill many people at once.
Assault weapons bans and high capacity clip bans were in effect and Columbine still happened. Gun buy back programs are ineffective.
I am vehemently pro-background check and I think if armed guards on capitol grounds and in private schools like the president's daughters is good enough and necessary for them, then it should be good enough and necessary for our kids. Why are liberals so afraid of armed guards for our kids? All I hear on the news is "we don't need to have more guns at schools by having armed guards." It makes absolutely no sense.
I think these issues are where America could unite. Don't waste your time trying to take guns away from law abiding citizens and go after the real problem. Come up with real solutions.
Posted by: Broken | January 17, 2013 at 01:02 PM
im afraid of gun owners who think their dumb assault weapon collecting hobby is more important than other people's lives
Posted by: Andrew | January 17, 2013 at 01:59 PM
Your comment shows how shallow minded you truly are. You're afraid of the wrong people, and for that I pity you.
Posted by: Broken | January 17, 2013 at 02:19 PM
So, since the President has armed Secret Service protection 24 x 7 -- shouldn't we demand that the government provide THAT for every citizen? And, of course, it would only be right to have armed secret service agents protecting each armed secret service agent. It may blow the deficit negotiations, but hello Full Employment!
The President and his children are at special risk of attack by, among others, terrorists and mentally unbalanced people.
Their risk profile is very different than that of most of the rest of us. Understanding this doesn't require particularly sharp critical thinking skills. IMHO, it's pretty shameful that the NRA would use this red herring argument (disagree all you want, but that's my opinion.)
Posted by: stevemc | January 17, 2013 at 04:25 PM
given the current assualt weapon loving laws im justifiably afraid anyone with a working index finger. why dont you collect stamps or old coins instead of weapons that you have absolutely no need for?
Posted by: Andrew | January 17, 2013 at 07:31 PM
We should use are local police to arrest the feds when they come for our guns; if African-Americans had been given the right to bear arms, perhaps slavery might not have been in our history; Sandy hook was staged & it was engineered by anti gun people.
Anyone buying it yet?
Posted by: Finis Hominis | January 17, 2013 at 08:23 PM
slaves were brought over on slave ships you fucking retards.
Posted by: Andrew | January 17, 2013 at 09:26 PM
He was being ironic. Geez.
Scarborough was on Charlie Rose last night and said we should start calling them military assault weapons to put them in the proper context. These people that seem to think owning a killing machine is their right are probably mentally ill themselves. They just don't know it yet.
Posted by: TS | January 17, 2013 at 11:14 PM
You don't get it. You can kill large groups of people in so many other ways than just with guns. Easier and quicker than with a gun even. You blame the gun when you should be blaming the nutcase.
@stevemc - Yes, there is secret service protection for the president's daughters, and rightfully so, along with his family and other important political figures. However, what I'm talking about are armed guards hired by the school itself to protect all the children, not just the president's. They are separate and have been at that school since before the POTUS daughters attended. The point is that if you keep your own gun, you are your own security officer. You don't need armed protection. Obviously, sane, rational people will not give children guns, hence the need for armed guards or officers, if a school feels it is necessary and/or budgets can afford them.
I personally would feel safer knowing that average joe citizen was armed. I don't know why any of you would feel less safe. You already put your life in other people's hands any time you walk on a sidewalk, drive down the road in your car, or ride a bike to work. If there were that many insane people out there, you'd probably be run over and dead already. Stop drinking the kool-aid. The media sensationalizes this stuff because they know it will keep you glued to your TV, and keep you buying your iPhones, iPads and iWhatever. Excuse me if I want my iGun, maybe one day it will end up protecting your ass.
Posted by: Broken | January 18, 2013 at 01:54 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvWzQDHn900
Enjoy.
Posted by: Broken | January 18, 2013 at 02:00 AM
except for the fact that the ar15 was the weapon of choice in multiple high profile mass shootings. its a common denominator. youre precisely the kind of person i worry about. youre irrational, uncaring of the recently deceased and you have an assault weapon fetish. youre not so different than those people. you just havent found your reason yet.
Posted by: Andrew | January 18, 2013 at 02:17 AM
LOL, I don't even own an assault weapon. I cried when those kids were killed at Sandy Hook. I have young kids of my own. I haven't even fired a gun in over 10 years. Guns are not my hobby.
You are off your rocker man. I am not irrational. I have said nothing irrational on this comment board.
As I posted previously, millions of people own AR15's or other assault weapon variants. Millions of people also own 9mm pistols. 9mms are probably used in a gun death every day. In fact, I am willing to bet good money that more people have died of 9mm pistols than ever have been killed with a civilian AR15 or any assault weapon in civilian hands. With your logic, 9mm's should be banned too.
Of course, my guess is that you would be glad to see all guns banned.
It is a fact that *any* gun is a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands. But so is a car, a bus, an airplane, a boat, a motorcycle, a tractor combine, a backhoe, a dumptruck, a construction crane, fertilizer, gasoline.. the list could go on and on. Pretty much any automated, technologically machined device or chemical concoction could be used to kill one or more people. (Just ask MacGyver, and he didn't like guns either). Yet you and your liberal friends have no problem with any of these things because they are commonly used.
Have you ever even fired a gun? Why are you so afraid of them?
Posted by: Broken | January 18, 2013 at 03:42 AM
By the way, after you watch the gun control espisode of Bullshit in the previous link, then watch this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaF9nbLo8as
Posted by: Broken | January 18, 2013 at 04:05 AM
Our President is trying to lead on this issue and something needs to be done. At least he is trying to get the discussion more seriously started. It's up to congress and possibly our supreme court to firmly reconcile this. Let's not bring the President's family into the fray with ad's, etc that is totally out of bounds, IMO.
Posted by: Sinbad | January 18, 2013 at 07:04 AM
broken youre still not addressing the fact that the ar15 was the weapon of choice in multiple massacres. your opinions dont match reality.
Posted by: Andrew | January 18, 2013 at 10:17 AM
How many times do I have to say it? It doesn't matter whether the weapon is an AR15. Nutjobs like AR15s, I think AR15s are good guns too (even though I do not own one). I like french fries, so do nutjobs. Should we ban french fries because every nutjob in the massacres ate french fries 24 hours before the killings?
You write as though the AR15 is the only gun that is capable of such carnage. It isn't. You can take so many other guns and swap out even 5 round magazines and blow a lot of defenseless people away. It takes just a second to swap a magazine, whether there are 30 rounds or 5, it would be very hard to stop anyone determined to go on a killing spree with any gun - unless you had a gun yourself, or you could somehow flank the person.
And even if you don't believe me on that point, it doesn't matter what kind of gun it is, there are high capacity magazines for all kinds of guns. If you ban high capacity clips, you think a criminal who is ready to commit murder suicide is going to obey such a law? Hell, even if they couldn't go buy the magazine at a store, they could spend $500 and buy a 3D printer and start making their own 25, 50, even 100 round clips themselves. It isn't rocket science, it's essentially a box with a spring that pushes the next bullet up.
But you're missing the bigger point in that it isn't just guns. If someone is determined to kill you, your friends, or a whole mess of random people, there are many ways they could do it without a gun.
Did you know that the biggest mass murder in our schools wasn't even done with a gun? A man in the early 19th century killed 40+ people with explosives.
Look man, I hope I never have to shoot anyone in my life. I have no desire to fire a gun at anyone, let alone point one at someone. But if the day comes that I am put in that position, I will gladly unload as many rounds as I can into whomever is threatening my life, my family's, my neighbor's or even random citizens like yourself.
You should be thankful there are many gun owners out there that feel the same way, and let them have their guns peacefully.
The biggest problem I see with the recent killings are these two things:
1) You have a person who is depressed or otherwise insane and is not getting help, even though there are others in their lives that notice problems.
- Lanza's mother should never have had guns anywhere near her son. She knew he was a danger and was unstable. If you want to blame anyone but Lanza, blame her.
- Holmes was seeing mental health professionals who apparently failed to report his condition to authorities. He should have never been allowed to own a gun, although he was determined enough that I don't know if not selling him a gun could have stopped him. As you know, he manufactured explosives that were rigged in his house.
- Harris and Klebold lived in their parents houses, who seemed to be blissfully unaware of their kids depression and apparent plans. Parents need to get involved in their kids lives. These kids were absolutely loaded with a huge arsenal, and for their parents not to know about it just blows me away (pun intended)
- That kid that shot up Gifford had major problems, and a lot of people knew it including the school he attended and other people his age who knew.
2) Most if not all of these people were on some kind of mind-altering medications.
I don't think you and I could disagree that universal background checks are a necessary thing.
I also think you can I can agree that anyone who is seeing or has seen a mental health professional for depression or other mentally unstable purpose should be denied a gun, and that the people around them should take guns out of reach of such individuals. Enabling these sorts of laws may have prevented that Hasan from killing all those people in Fort Hood. But if you can't trust an army major with a gun, who can you trust? (oh, and he didn't use an AR15 by the way - still, 13 dead, 29 wounded)
I also think that we could agree that unless you are carrying, I think all guns should be locked up one way or another, trigger locks at a minimum, gun safes if possible.
Penalties for people who break gun laws should be very stiff.
Penalties for people who have violent convictions should perhaps never be let back into society. The death penalty should be used more often, and reinstated in those states that have removed it for the clearly guilty in cases of murder. Spengler should have never been let out of prison, IMO. Those volunteer firefighters would still be alive.
These are the things we should be talking about. Not banning AR15s.
Posted by: Broken One | January 18, 2013 at 11:12 AM
look this is simple, of all the guns available, they chose the ar15 because it was the right tool for the job. you are arguing that they could have used any tool but they chose that particular gun. its designed to fire a lot of rounds in a short amount of time. your suggestions about mental health monitoring are ineffectual at best and a diversion tactic at worst.
Posted by: Andrew | January 18, 2013 at 02:06 PM
Your last name wouldn't happen to be Walsh, would it? Jesus Christ, you cannot even listen to reason nor do you want to come to ANY common ground. You just want guns gone period.
Any gun with multiple rounds aside from a bolt action is designed to fire many rounds quickly. That goes for any semi-automatic, revolver (remember how quickly those guys in the old west movies fire their guns? Yea, that's real), or pump action. You clearly have shown that you know NOTHING about what you're talking about.
Your posts are poorly written and uninforming. You are a sad individual with no desire to think for yourself.
I'm done wasting my time trying to find common ground with a fool like you. Go drink your koolaid and listen to more NPR on your ipad.
Posted by: Broken | January 18, 2013 at 02:52 PM
@AnyoneButAndrew The point is, ban AR15's and nutjobs will just find some other way to kill people, whether that is another type of gun or something else. Some people just don't get it, do they?
Posted by: Broken | January 18, 2013 at 02:58 PM
australia banned assault weapons and both homicide and suicide rates dropped. but of course they could have used any gun, and yet the rates still dropped. your understanding of reality is simply wrong. when things are made convenient, people are more likely to do those things.
Posted by: Andrew | January 18, 2013 at 03:18 PM
This gun "hobby" has a significant cost to everyone.
I favor the insurance idea. Every illegal weapon starts off as a legally purchased one and is lost or stolen.
So you want these toys, carry private liability insurance. That way if you lose it and the wrong person gets hold of it society can recoup some of its financial costs.
There is now an abandoned school in Connecticut, a mall in Oregon that lost a lot a lot of business at Christmas, a Cinema in Colorado that was shut down for six months, a restaurant/ night club that closed at Bellevue Square and a small coffee shop in Roosevelt.These costs are paid by our taxes and the unfortunate business owners.
Now you want to spend $10Billion on armed school guards nationwide.Never mind about all the private businesses that would have to do the same.
How about we burn down your house and place of employment and say tough luck dude it's my right!
Posted by: ExPattBrit | January 18, 2013 at 05:30 PM
You don't get it. You can kill large groups of people in so many other ways than just with guns.
Gee, I never thought of it that way. Hmmm. We can save all sorts of money . . . let's stop researching a cure for cancer because a stroke might kill you anyway. Or a heart attack. Or you might get run over by a car. Let's end all medical research because no matter what you cure, something else will get you.
And why have laws at all? That's novel thinking, Broken. We can save all sorts of money that way. You're gonna die anyway. Who cares how it happens? Right? If you can't stop it all, why try to stop any of it? I don't have to take responsibility for anything. Thank you.
Gun fetish? That's the truth.
Posted by: TS | January 18, 2013 at 06:42 PM
GUNS IN SCHOOLS TO PROTECT OUR KIDS!!! how awful. We're much better off sticking our heads in the sand and hoping that it never happens again. Maybe we should reign in the fire department too. Just imagine how terrifying it must be to the parents and the students every time there is a fire drill or they see one of the many fire extinguishers or realize that there is a sprinkler system, fire proof materials etc.etc.etc. These are in place to keep people safe after some terrible events in the past. Rather than have some feel good laws that will do no good, we should put in place some real safe guards to protect our kids. Sandy hook school had all the latest and greatest to keep them safe from an intruder and a disaster still happened. A fire arm, tazer or something in the hands of a competent trained person would go a long way to help protect from a future tragedy. Face it, times have changed, the world is much more violent and scarier than it once was. Swallow hard and face the reality that we must protect ourselves.
Posted by: JB-2 | January 18, 2013 at 07:01 PM
So a renegade sprinkler system is going to kill you...?
Posted by: TS | January 18, 2013 at 07:32 PM
Nutjobs like AR15s, I think AR15s are good guns too…
Posted by: Broken One | January 18, 2013 at 11:12 AM
Do you need more proof that these people are off their rocker?
Maybe we should reign in the fire department too. Just imagine how terrifying it must be to the parents and the students every time there is a fire drill or they see one of the many fire extinguishers or realize that there is a sprinkler system, fire proof materials etc.etc.etc.
Posted by: JB-2 | January 18, 2013 at 07:01 PM
These people aren’t serious. They are just throwing shit at the wall.
Posted by: Finis Hominis | January 18, 2013 at 10:52 PM
Andrew proves himself the idiot once again. Might as well extend your bans Andrew. If you take away people's right to drive, then there will be less road deaths, and less suicide by drivers driving on the wrong side of the road.
You have no idea how many people decided to off themselves another way, or commit hommicide in another fashion.
Finis also can't take a joke. You liberal f*cks are extremely stupid. You guys like grape or strawberry flavored?
Posted by: Broken | January 19, 2013 at 12:02 AM
Finis also can't take a joke.
Posted by: Broken | January 19, 2013 at 12:02 AM
I’m guessing, it’s not funny to lose children to a mass murderer.Posted by: Finis Hominis | January 19, 2013 at 12:13 AM
australia banned assault weapons and homicide and suicide rates dropped. was that magic broken? did kangaroos make it happen? brokens worldview is... broken.
Posted by: Andrew | January 19, 2013 at 01:31 AM
You're guessing wrong Finis. Joke has multiple meanings, but I guess I shouldn't expect you to understand that. Maybe sarcastic would be more to your liking. But my guess is you'll just make a feeble attempt to twist whatever I say to get your morning jollies.
Andrew's world view never was. Thank spaghetti monsters that George Washington wasn't afraid of guns like the rest of you, or all of us wouldn't be able to speak our minds. If good old Georgy boy had access to an AR15, he definitely would have used it.
You can claim whatever so-called facts you want Andrew. Anything you have said I can come up with alternative evidence to the contrary.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/22137/assault-weapons-bans-didn-t-work-in-australia-and-won-t-work-in-america
I was trying to take the conversation in a direction that is helpful, but all any of you want to do is focus on no-guns. Get it through your head that that will never happen in the US. I highly doubt they will even pass new assault weapons ban legislation.
I cleaned one of my guns tonight, and I also installed a tactical stock on it, complete with a picatinny weaver based red dot and 3x flip to side magnifier, co-witnessed absolutely with the iron sights. All in honor of you Andrew. Just thought you should know. Oh, and I put a bayonet on the front of it too. Looks sweet. Can't wait to get to the gun range.
If only one more person would own a firearm for every ignorance spouting liberal, this world would be such a better place. Ahh... one can dream.
Posted by: Broken One | January 19, 2013 at 03:14 AM
I cleaned one of my guns tonight,
I hope you warned the neighbors first.
Posted by: TS | January 19, 2013 at 11:30 AM
I cleaned one of my guns tonight, and I also installed a tactical stock on it, complete with a picatinny weaver based red dot and 3x flip to side magnifier, co-witnessed absolutely with the iron sights. All in honor of you Andrew. Just thought you should know. Oh, and I put a bayonet on the front of it too. Looks sweet. Can't wait to get to the gun range.
If only one more person would own a firearm for every ignorance spouting liberal, this world would be such a better place. Ahh... one can dream.
Be careful with your toys, you don't want to accidentally shoot your dick off even if it's size is probably best measured in mm!
Posted by: ExPattBrit | January 19, 2013 at 11:31 AM
As funny as you think you might be, I feel that anyone who wants to purchase or own a gun should have to go through proper gun training classes as I did when I was a child. But that would just be too much common sense for you guys. No matter how small you might think my dick is, at least I have one, which is more than can be said for you pussies. Assuming you are not gay, we all know who wears the pants in your families.
Posted by: Broken | January 19, 2013 at 12:12 PM
watch it and weep, Broken.
Posted by: TS | January 19, 2013 at 12:53 PM
i was right about you having an assault weapon fetish, a weapon that is never needed for anything outside of war. what else was i right about? are you going to war broken? are your fellow citizens potential enemies? youre the most hostile poster here and youre the one arguing for guns. see why we are so rightfully worried? every day people not unlike you who have a gun shoot someone in a fit of rage or desperation. but youre different right?
Posted by: Andrew | January 19, 2013 at 01:10 PM
Yeah I've been extremely hostile. I have threatened you with words about trying to take care of the mentally ill. I've threatened to make you take a gun class before you own one. I said you don't have a dick. Wow, scary words.
You're so afraid of guns if you see a toy one at the store, you weep uncontrollably. If someone came up and Bruce Lee-ed your ass, you'd probably want to ban humanity because fists can be a deadly weapon too.
Yeah, you should be worried Andrew. Not about me, but you should be worried. There's a storm coming, Mr. Andrew. You and your friends better batten down the hatches, because when it hits, you're all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_5dP_83O7o
Posted by: Broken | January 19, 2013 at 01:31 PM
Hawt picture of a gun fetishist, just for u Broken!
http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af216/Jaysauras/best_guy_ever.jpg?t=1266563621
Posted by: ExPattBrit | January 19, 2013 at 04:42 PM
Your missing the point Finis & TS, it wasn't an attempt at humor, rather I was trying to show that there is already measures taken in schools to deal with possible disaster and bring some thought to the argument that some form of protection in a school could be troubling to the students and their family. I am being serious, and I'm not not the one throwing the shit. The way you took my comments out of context leads me to believe that you're the one not being serious. I didn't say that guns were the only answer, look at all the words. I'm not some "pro gun nut", I'm a very concerned person trying to get some minds opened to dealing with a problem. Name calling and knee jerk reactions are not the answer. There are millions of guns and nut jobs to use them. All the gun control that you can imagine won't help that fact so we need to have a realistic and maybe a bit unsettling plan to deal with it.
Any ideas?
Posted by: JB-2 | January 19, 2013 at 05:50 PM
Today was National Gun Appreciation Day, or something like that. Over the course of the day, there were 5 separate shooting accidents at these gun shows.
I love irony
Posted by: Walt | January 19, 2013 at 09:10 PM
JB-2, I think the only ones looking for any real answers are you and I. The rest of them are just trolls, who are happy to watch the forum burn. But Alfred says it so much better...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53sRwzvdvPc
Posted by: Broken One | January 19, 2013 at 10:26 PM
I think the answers you are looking for can only be found in the little bag of balls you and JB share, Broken Ohh.
Posted by: Finis Hominis | January 20, 2013 at 01:02 AM
I heard you loud and clear, JB. And I answered accordingly. Instead of one gun doing damage, we'd have two or three or how about four? The shoot-out at the OK Corral. I wonder how many bystanders that would save? So many better answers and all you two can think of is more of the same. Do either of you use the wonderful world of Google to find out how other more civilized countries solve their problems?
More guns. Maybe Elliot Ness will return from his Elysian Fields and we can go back to the times of Bonnie and Clyde when guns were the solutions for both sides.
Just unbelievable.
Posted by: TS | January 20, 2013 at 03:27 PM
And another moment of genius from David Gregory today when he actually conflated gun control with entitlement reform which apparently pleases our plagiarist historian Doris Goodwin who has left the field of histoy and become an economist. And Joe Scarborough who seems to hate his own party except when David Axelrod chimes in and sets old Scarborough off on a Republican defense. Poor Axelrod. He didn't get a chance to say much since everytime he opened his mouth which wasn't often, Scarborough would talk over him.
Seems the left can't talk about gun control until it also talks about entitlement reform. And Tom Brokaw is not aging well. His comments were equally void of any wisdom whatsoever.
When did we become so stupid in this country? Trading the safety net for guns in the richest country in the world.
Unbelievable twice.
Posted by: TS | January 20, 2013 at 03:35 PM
Also, thinking about security guards: low pay; get shot first when intruder enters; usually get out immediately and call for police if they're smart and start shooting up the place if they're not smart.
Government buildings where security is hired accompany big machines that expose concealed weapons. Like the airport. Like the jail. That's how guns are kept out. Are you willing to pay more in taxes to support police in schools? Do you have any idea how many schools there are in this country? And what about the shooter who sits across the street and picks kids and adults off the playground? Can't happen you say? Anything can happen. More guns is not the answer.
Posted by: TS | January 20, 2013 at 04:26 PM
On my friend's Facebook page--
"Gun Appreciation Day" update: 5 people shot in the process of "celebrating" yesterday.
A 62 year old man in Ohio was shot in the arm by his friend, an arms dealer; treated for injuries to his arm & leg, is in "good spirits".
In Indianapolis, a man at the Indy 1500 Gun and Knife Show shot his hand as he unloaded a .45-caliber semiautomatic, the Associated Press said.
Three people were also injured at the Dixie Gun and Knife Show in Raleigh, N.C., when a 12-gauge shotgun filled with bird shot accidentally discharged, authorities said.
The injuries came on Gun Appreciation Day, promoted by a Republican consulting firm. The group had urged people to go to their local gun range, gun store or gun show as a protest to stricter gun laws proposed by President Obama this week.
Does that make today "Gunshot Appreciation Day"?
Also yesterday, a 15 year old boy shot and killed two adults and three children in New Mexico.
The house where the shooting occurred was full of guns and ammo.
Too bad someone there with a gun couldn't have stopped him.
Posted by: sparky | January 20, 2013 at 04:33 PM
If the outcome were not so tragic, the irrational discourse from the right would be hilarious.
Posted by: Gentlemen Rouge | January 20, 2013 at 08:56 PM
TS, I would love to know your thoughts on our military. Low pay, get shot at first, usually duck and run? Not a chance. How about police officers? Low pay, get shot at first, usually duck and run? Uh, no, wrong again.
What makes you think these people would be paid any less, or act any differently than our military and our police officers? There is such a thing as noble duty, and I would think any trained rational person would use their weapon and try to stop someone from killing children. I know I would.
Hell, even the teachers and administrators at Sandy Hook appeared to stand up to that Lanza kid and they didn't even have a weapon with them. What about that teacher that was fortunate enough to talk down that student who shot that other kid a couple weeks ago with a shotgun? You would be the first to say they were low paid. They certainly were in the line of fire. Did they stand down? Uh, nope. Your logic fails on this, just like on the rest of your arguments.
I'm not against higher security buildings for our children. But I have heard so many administrators on the radio and TV say they don't want kids to feel like they are in lockdown (on top of no armed guards). LOL. They want their cake and they want to eat it too. You have to have some kind of way to provide some security, or just realize the truth - that our schools are very safe overall. Every death of a child is very sad, and pains me as a parent. But shootings, especially like the Sandy Hook case, are the great exception, not the rule.
The president says that we have a duty to act (on gun control) if it can save just one child. It is a sad fact, but children die all the time. Why is there no duty to stop the other ways they are killed?
What about the liberal idiots that allowed Josh Powell to have his children so that he could blow them up? Liberals let the criminals loose on the streets, give them back their freedoms and remove any sense of shame from their being, and then cry like babies when they do something irrational yet again. And usually it is worse.
What the f*ck did you expect to happen when your liberal laws dictate our justice system?
Every time a rapist, especially a child rapist, is let back out on the streets, I f*cking cringe. But, you would say they can be reformed. Perhaps the problem is that liberals never learn from their mistakes. I guess liberals should know, they've made a sh*tload of them.
Posted by: Broken One | January 20, 2013 at 11:52 PM
theyre on the wrong side of history and theyre becoming increasingly childish as the mainstream turns against them. i think were turning a corner, these gun nuts are becoming more fringe than ever before. fewer and fewer conservatives want to be seen standing near these lunatics. "do you understand!" haha
Posted by: Andrew | January 21, 2013 at 12:01 AM
Police pay is not comparable to security guard pay. I don't know if you actually graduated high school or are just emotionally fraught at the notion you might have to register your gun or give up your military assault weapons, but your arguments are getting sillier and further from the point with every attempt.
I notice that you use a lot of emotional rhetoric and resort to name calling and can only deduce that it is the fear in you. Solutions do not come from fear. They must be rational and reasonable considerations. And there are more eggs in an intelligent argument than one. You are stuck in the rut of more guns. Sad.
Posted by: T-S | January 21, 2013 at 12:23 AM
TS, I would love to know your thoughts on our military. Low pay, get shot at first, usually duck and run? Not a chance. How about police officers? Low pay, get shot at first, usually duck and run?
What the fuck? Fall back, reorganize and attack is standard procedure. Don’t talk for those who are trained in tactical procedure, you sound stupid.
Posted by: Sgt.Rock | January 21, 2013 at 12:28 AM