Funny, they thought the same thing in Germany in the 1930s.
so you compare your own country to that of 1930s Germany? hmmmmm weird but ok.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
it is indeed ludicrous... I'd bet that this 'militia' if it were ever formed would shit themselves inside out if they ever saw an advancing infantry movement coming toward them...
truly laughable.
Whats more laughable is you bending over for your Government.
infantile retort aside... how am i more opressed than you? without my guns how does my government treat me differently to you?
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
you probably wouldn't believe it, but that is one of my favorite all time episodes (speed cocker.... like the sounds of that). But a 9 year old girl is dead, people are trying to use it to push gun control, which would only make the problem worse. This is not the time to laugh.
That's a strange concept. I've never heard of pushing gun ownership. I just imagine rallies where people hold signs about "everyone should own a gun". And they just hand guns out to people on the street and stuff. All we are pushing is to keep our inalienable right to bear arms. Stuff wasn't put in to the constitution without lots of thought and debate. It’s not a random mistake of our forefathers. Just as government provided healthcare was not included in the constitution. They did this stuff for a reason; they set out to protect us from our government.
so you compare your own country to that of 1930s Germany? hmmmmm weird but ok.
Oh, because we don't speak German, I get it. Good point. I'll ignore all the similarities.
you've missed my point... you were stating that the government of Germany removed guns from its citizens in the 1930s... which is true... but then that was a dictatorship of the worst kind... a kakistocracy... so are you comparing America to that of 1930s Germany? cos there can be no other reason for you making the link back to 30s Germany as you did. you made the comparison, not me.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
so you compare your own country to that of 1930s Germany? hmmmmm weird but ok.
Oh, because we don't speak German, I get it. Good point. I'll ignore all the similarities.
you've missed my point... you were stating that the government of Germany removed guns from its citizens in the 1930s... which is true... but then that was a dictatorship of the worst kind... a kakistocracy... so are you comparing America to that of 1930s Germany? cos there can be no other reason for you making the link back to 30s Germany as you did. you made the comparison, not me.
You had a goverment that wanted more power, and people that lived under the government. That's pretty much 100% the same. We pretty much have a kakistocracy. Do you think the government is doing a good job? They are a bunch of underqualified elitists who don't listen to their consitutants (i.e. Obamacare). They need term limits, they need to have all laws they pass apply to them.
That's a strange concept. I've never heard of pushing gun ownership. I just imagine rallies where people hold signs about "everyone should own a guy". And they just hand guns out to people on the street and stuff. All we are pushing is to keep our inalienable right to bear arms. Stuff wasn't put in to the constitution without lots of thought and debate. It’s not a random mistake of our forefathers. Just as government provided healthcare was not included in the constitution. They did this stuff for a reason; they set out to protect us from our government.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
That's a strange concept. I've never heard of pushing gun ownership. I just imagine rallies where people hold signs about "everyone should own a gun". And they just hand guns out to people on the street and stuff. All we are pushing is to keep our inalienable right to bear arms. Stuff wasn't put in to the constitution without lots of thought and debate. It’s not a random mistake of our forefathers. Just as government provided healthcare was not included in the constitution. They did this stuff for a reason; they set out to protect us from our government.
I disagree that it's antiquated. They had healthcare 200 years ago, and didn't include that as a right. It was 150 years old in the 1930s when they rounded up the guns in Germany. That's still a long time. The idea that that government needs to fear and respect it's citizens is the same as it ever was. Our founding fathers knew that, and they were a hell of a lot smarter than us.
Oh, because we don't speak German, I get it. Good point. I'll ignore all the similarities.
you've missed my point... you were stating that the government of Germany removed guns from its citizens in the 1930s... which is true... but then that was a dictatorship of the worst kind... a kakistocracy... so are you comparing America to that of 1930s Germany? cos there can be no other reason for you making the link back to 30s Germany as you did. you made the comparison, not me.
You had a goverment that wanted more power, and people that lived under the government. That's pretty much 100% the same. We pretty much have a kakistocracy. Do you think the government is doing a good job? They are a bunch of underqualified elitists who don't listen to their consitutants (i.e. Obamacare). They need term limits, they need to have all laws they pass apply to them.
your rhetoric about your government is amazingly similar to that of a certain Mr. Jared Loughner :wtf:
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
That's a strange concept. I've never heard of pushing gun ownership. I just imagine rallies where people hold signs about "everyone should own a gun". And they just hand guns out to people on the street and stuff. All we are pushing is to keep our inalienable right to bear arms. Stuff wasn't put in to the constitution without lots of thought and debate. It’s not a random mistake of our forefathers. Just as government provided healthcare was not included in the constitution. They did this stuff for a reason; they set out to protect us from our government.
I disagree that it's antiquated. They had healthcare 200 years ago, and didn't include that as a right. It was 150 years old in the 1930s when they rounded up the guns in Germany. That's still a long time. The idea that that government needs to fear and respect it's citizens is the same as it ever was. Our founding fathers knew that, and they were a hell of a lot smarter than us.
Ok i've asked this already and no one could really answer it - given that this person bought a Gloch legally, and you are against tougher laws to stop people like this, what do you suggest be done.
The law said that this guy fit the bill of a "responsible" gun owner, which he clearly was not, so suggestions please? Do we just chalk this down to experience - maybe forget it happened in a week or two?
your rhetoric about your government is amazingly similar to that of a certain Mr. Jared Loughner :wtf:
It's sad that you had to resort to name calling because you couldn't keep up.
I'm sorry that you don't understand what our founding fathers intended. I'm sorry that you think that the government is a great thing that should remove all of your personal responsibility. I'm sorry that you think that politicians should be able to take advantage of their constituents. I’m sorry you think that the government should be able to grow unchecked, and slowly erode our freedoms. I guess that makes me a bad person. Maybe you should move to Venezuela or Cuba to be with more people who think like you.
Ok i've asked this already and no one could really answer it - given that this person bought a Gloch legally, and you are against tougher laws to stop people like this, what do you suggest be done.
The law said that this guy fit the bill of a "responsible" gun owner, which he clearly was not, so suggestions please? Do we just chalk this down to experience - maybe forget it happened in a week or two?
Well it's really a moot question. The crime is independant from the tool used to commit the crime.
I'm not against background checks. No one should ever be in a hurry to buy a gun (Homer: But I'm angry now!). But would any amount of checking ever have figured out that this guy was a problem? And if he didn't get it legally, he would have gotten it illegally. If he couldn't get it illegally, he would have found other means to accomplish his goal.
your rhetoric about your government is amazingly similar to that of a certain Mr. Jared Loughner :wtf:
It's sad that you had to resort to name calling because you couldn't keep up.
I'm sorry that you don't understand what our founding fathers intended. I'm sorry that you think that the government is a great thing that should remove all of your personal responsibility. I'm sorry that you think that politicians should be able to take advantage of their constituents. I’m sorry you think that the government should be able to grow unchecked, and slowly erode our freedoms. I guess that makes me a bad person. Maybe you should move to Venezuela or Cuba to be with more people who think like you.
LOL - why what do people in Cuba and Venezuela think??
I am trying to understand how you got any of that from any posts, never mind Dunkman's. The last throw of the dice from the logically starved accusar perhaps? Relax fella, just because I and Dunkman believe that our governments are not out to destroy us doesnt't make us part of some 50's commie plot to take over the world.
Everyone knows the Scotts and the Irish took over the world along time ago anyway - probably a reason for all the irrational debates of late
your rhetoric about your government is amazingly similar to that of a certain Mr. Jared Loughner :wtf:
It's sad that you had to resort to name calling because you couldn't keep up.
I'm sorry that you don't understand what our founding fathers intended. I'm sorry that you think that the government is a great thing that should remove all of your personal responsibility. I'm sorry that you think that politicians should be able to take advantage of their constituents. I’m sorry you think that the government should be able to grow unchecked, and slowly erode our freedoms. I guess that makes me a bad person. Maybe you should move to Venezuela or Cuba to be with more people who think like you.
no thanks, i live in a fantastic and free country as it is... but Cuba does sound nice.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Ok i've asked this already and no one could really answer it - given that this person bought a Gloch legally, and you are against tougher laws to stop people like this, what do you suggest be done.
The law said that this guy fit the bill of a "responsible" gun owner, which he clearly was not, so suggestions please? Do we just chalk this down to experience - maybe forget it happened in a week or two?
Well it's really a moot question. The crime is independant from the tool used to commit the crime.
I'm not against background checks. No one should ever be in a hurry to buy a gun (Homer: But I'm angry now!). But would any amount of checking ever have figured out that this guy was a problem? And if he didn't get it legally, he would have gotten it illegally. If he couldn't get it illegally, he would have found other means to accomplish his goal.
The only point here is that he did get it legally, this whole - if he couldnt get a gun he'd have used a teddy bear, is pure speculation - he acquired a gun legally because of Arizona's law, and I'm sure there are 6 peoples families who may disagree about the "moot" question.
I asked a direct question, let's not speculate - facts are - kid bought a gun, was deemed of sound mind and to be responsible enough to purchase and carry a firearm. So if we believe that the kid was a nut, then we have to question how he was allowed to purchase the weapon - hence question the regulations that exist that saw fit to grant him the weapon, it's simple really.
But would any amount of checking ever have figured out that this guy was a problem?
it might have postponed it just long enough for people to see his crazed rants online and to friends and cause some concern in the interim to check him out. Thenthey realize he's been looking at guns -- possibly someone could have helped him.
The families don't care that a gun killed their loved ones. They care that their loved ones were killed. The tool used to do it does not matter to them. There is something wrong with them if they are worried about what killed their loved ones and how he go it, and not who. It’s very simple, the tool used does not matter. You can’t ignore this simple fact just because it does not fit your agenda.
How is it speculation that he would have seeked other means? Do you think that he would have given up if he legally could not purchase a gun? That is speculation on your part. Do you honestly think someone capable of such an act would stop just because he couldn't purchase a gun legally?
The only point here is that he did get it legally, this whole - if he couldnt get a gun he'd have used a teddy bear, is pure speculation - he acquired a gun legally because of Arizona's law, and I'm sure there are 6 peoples families who may disagree about the "moot" question.
I asked a direct question, let's not speculate - facts are - kid bought a gun, was deemed of sound mind and to be responsible enough to purchase and carry a firearm. So if we believe that the kid was a nut, then we have to question how he was allowed to purchase the weapon - hence question the regulations that exist that saw fit to grant him the weapon, it's simple really.
But would any amount of checking ever have figured out that this guy was a problem?
it might have postponed it just long enough for people to see his crazed rants online and to friends and cause some concern in the interim to check him out. Thenthey realize he's been looking at guns -- possibly someone could have helped him.
He had a specific target on a specific date. He would have found another way.
I remember when President Bush got crucified for trying to use all available sources of information to save innocent lives from terrorist attacks like this. I don't so much mind losing personal freedom if it is in exchange for safety, plus I don't have anything to hide, so wire tap all you want! So I guess you guys are saying that Bush was right? That we should do everything in our power to stop incidents like this?
The families don't care that a gun killed their loved ones. They care that their loved ones were killed. The tool used to do it does not matter to them.
The families don't care that a gun killed their loved ones. They care that their loved ones were killed. The tool used to do it does not matter to them. There is something wrong with them if they are worried about what killed their loved ones and how he go it, and not who. It’s very simple, the tool used does not matter. You can’t ignore this simple fact just because it does not fit your agenda.
How is it speculation that he would have seeked other means? Do you think that he would have given up if he legally could not purchase a gun? That is speculation on your part. Do you honestly think someone capable of such an act would stop just because he couldn't purchase a gun legally?
The only point here is that he did get it legally, this whole - if he couldnt get a gun he'd have used a teddy bear, is pure speculation - he acquired a gun legally because of Arizona's law, and I'm sure there are 6 peoples families who may disagree about the "moot" question.
I asked a direct question, let's not speculate - facts are - kid bought a gun, was deemed of sound mind and to be responsible enough to purchase and carry a firearm. So if we believe that the kid was a nut, then we have to question how he was allowed to purchase the weapon - hence question the regulations that exist that saw fit to grant him the weapon, it's simple really.
I dont know if he would have stopped - it's speculation - all I know is what did happen, and that the laws allowed him to purchase a gun. I'm asking you: given that the law was clearly wrong in that it allowed him purchase a gun, what do you propose we do? Forget everything else, about parents, just answer that question
The families don't care that a gun killed their loved ones. They care that their loved ones were killed. The tool used to do it does not matter to them. There is something wrong with them if they are worried about what killed their loved ones and how he go it, and not who. It’s very simple, the tool used does not matter. You can’t ignore this simple fact just because it does not fit your agenda.
How is it speculation that he would have seeked other means? Do you think that he would have given up if he legally could not purchase a gun? That is speculation on your part. Do you honestly think someone capable of such an act would stop just because he couldn't purchase a gun legally?
The only point here is that he did get it legally, this whole - if he couldnt get a gun he'd have used a teddy bear, is pure speculation - he acquired a gun legally because of Arizona's law, and I'm sure there are 6 peoples families who may disagree about the "moot" question.
I asked a direct question, let's not speculate - facts are - kid bought a gun, was deemed of sound mind and to be responsible enough to purchase and carry a firearm. So if we believe that the kid was a nut, then we have to question how he was allowed to purchase the weapon - hence question the regulations that exist that saw fit to grant him the weapon, it's simple really.
I don't agree with you on the believe that the family doesn't care what killed their love ones. I can't say for certain as no-one can but i have known families that have dealt with loss and many of them start to look at the bigger issues around their lose and begin to fight against it.
The families don't care that a gun killed their loved ones. They care that their loved ones were killed. The tool used to do it does not matter to them.
Have they all come out and said this?
Or is this just speculation too?
Have they come out and said that their chief concern is what killed their loved ones, or is that just speculation?
It's just common sense. If you know someone that is killed by a drunk driver, would you get mad at the car? Or the car industry? Or the car dealership? Or the person behind the wheel.
The families don't care that a gun killed their loved ones. They care that their loved ones were killed. The tool used to do it does not matter to them.
Have they all come out and said this?
Or is this just speculation too?
Have they come out and said that their chief concern is what killed their loved ones, or is that just speculation?
It's just common sense. If you know someone that is killed by a drunk driver, would you get mad at the car? Or the car industry? Or the car dealership? Or the person behind the wheel.
I would get mad at the bigger issues which is drinking while driving. that where MADD came from. mothers were sick of losing children to drinking and driving that they began to fight to make punishments harder for peopel who did drink and drive.
The families don't care that a gun killed their loved ones. They care that their loved ones were killed. The tool used to do it does not matter to them. There is something wrong with them if they are worried about what killed their loved ones and how he go it, and not who. It’s very simple, the tool used does not matter. You can’t ignore this simple fact just because it does not fit your agenda.
How is it speculation that he would have seeked other means? Do you think that he would have given up if he legally could not purchase a gun? That is speculation on your part. Do you honestly think someone capable of such an act would stop just because he couldn't purchase a gun legally?
The only point here is that he did get it legally, this whole - if he couldnt get a gun he'd have used a teddy bear, is pure speculation - he acquired a gun legally because of Arizona's law, and I'm sure there are 6 peoples families who may disagree about the "moot" question.
I asked a direct question, let's not speculate - facts are - kid bought a gun, was deemed of sound mind and to be responsible enough to purchase and carry a firearm. So if we believe that the kid was a nut, then we have to question how he was allowed to purchase the weapon - hence question the regulations that exist that saw fit to grant him the weapon, it's simple really.
I dont know if he would have stopped - it's speculation - all I know is what did happen, and that the laws allowed him to purchase a gun. I'm asking you: given that the law was clearly wrong in that it allowed him purchase a gun, what do you propose we do? Forget everything else, about parents, just answer that question
Again, rather that keep touting the old "Never Surrender" line, answer the above question posed, what do you propose happen?
I would get mad at the bigger issues which is drinking while driving. that where MADD came from. mothers were sick of losing children to drinking and driving that they began to fight to make punishments harder for peopel who did drink and drive.
Exactly, mothers against DRUNK DRIVERS. They are mad at the person, not the tool!
I dont know if he would have stopped - it's speculation - all I know is what did happen, and that the laws allowed him to purchase a gun. I'm asking you: given that the law was clearly wrong in that it allowed him purchase a gun, what do you propose we do? Forget everything else, about parents, just answer that question
I just don't see the point to your question. The man did it, not the gun.
How do you propose we keep people who would potentially drink and drive off the road? Maybe institute a 6 month background check process complete with psych evaluation? Is that going to change anything? Would it be perfect? Would it stop all drinking and driving? Or should we just ban cars?
I would get mad at the bigger issues which is drinking while driving. that where MADD came from. mothers were sick of losing children to drinking and driving that they began to fight to make punishments harder for peopel who did drink and drive.
Exactly, mothers against DRUNK DRIVERS. They are mad at the person, not the tool!
I dont know if he would have stopped - it's speculation - all I know is what did happen, and that the laws allowed him to purchase a gun. I'm asking you: given that the law was clearly wrong in that it allowed him purchase a gun, what do you propose we do? Forget everything else, about parents, just answer that question
I just don't see the point to your question. The man did it, not the gun.
How do you propose we keep people who would potentially drink and drive off the road? Maybe institute a 6 month background check process complete with psych evaluation? Is that going to change anything? Would it be perfect? Would it stop all drinking and driving? Or should we just ban cars?
I'm talking about a clearly mentally unstable man who purchased a legal firearm, then shot a number of people killing 6 of them. If a loon can purchase a gun legally then should that not mean we go back and re define what the term legally means when purchasing a firearm - please stick to the point
I'm talking about a clearly mentally unstable man who purchased a legal firearm, then shot a number of people killing 6 of them. If a loon can purchase a gun legally then should that not mean we go back and re define what the term legally means when purchasing a firearm - please stick to the point
Are you just going to keep dodging all day?
The man could have used a car to run the people over, or built a pipe bomb. So maybe we should just background check everyone really well, and lock people up who might possibly do anything wrong? Or maybe we should use all available means to stop this stuff, like say Bush's wire taps?
I'm talking about a clearly mentally unstable man who purchased a legal firearm, then shot a number of people killing 6 of them. If a loon can purchase a gun legally then should that not mean we go back and re define what the term legally means when purchasing a firearm - please stick to the point
Are you just going to keep dodging all day?
The man could have used a car to run the people over, or built a pipe bomb. So maybe we should just background check everyone really well, and lock people up who might possibly do anything wrong? Or maybe we should use all available means to stop this stuff, like say Bush's wire taps?
I'm dodging nothing - he didnt use a car, or a bomb - funny examples to use actually given all the regualtion and strict laws, anywho - I am stating what actually happened. Only one dodging is yourself.
I would get mad at the bigger issues which is drinking while driving. that where MADD came from. mothers were sick of losing children to drinking and driving that they began to fight to make punishments harder for peopel who did drink and drive.
Exactly, mothers against DRUNK DRIVERS. They are mad at the person, not the tool!
The tool is an inanimate object. You are right in saying nobody is mad at it. That would be batshit crazy. The issue is its place in society and use of it.
What they are mad at it is the larger cultural/social environment and policies that control the tool and shape the use of it. Sometimes they are mad at the individual, but not always. A lot of times they will even come out and say they have forgiven the individual.
I would get mad at the bigger issues which is drinking while driving. that where MADD came from. mothers were sick of losing children to drinking and driving that they began to fight to make punishments harder for peopel who did drink and drive.
Exactly, mothers against DRUNK DRIVERS. They are mad at the person, not the tool!
How do you propose we keep people who would potentially drink and drive off the road? Maybe institute a 6 month background check process complete with psych evaluation? Is that going to change anything? Would it be perfect? Would it stop all drinking and driving? Or should we just ban cars?
actually its mother against drunk driving not drunk drivers. Those mother have also gone against alcohol. they have tried to limit the amount of alcohol a person can have when they are driving. They realize that the "tool" which is the alcohol is a weapon just like people realize that guns are a weapon. I just don't know how you can separate a tool and a person. if the person doesn't have access to that tool they can't use it.
Comments
so you compare your own country to that of 1930s Germany? hmmmmm weird but ok.
infantile retort aside... how am i more opressed than you? without my guns how does my government treat me differently to you?
Oh, because we don't speak German, I get it. Good point. I'll ignore all the similarities.
That's a strange concept. I've never heard of pushing gun ownership. I just imagine rallies where people hold signs about "everyone should own a gun". And they just hand guns out to people on the street and stuff. All we are pushing is to keep our inalienable right to bear arms. Stuff wasn't put in to the constitution without lots of thought and debate. It’s not a random mistake of our forefathers. Just as government provided healthcare was not included in the constitution. They did this stuff for a reason; they set out to protect us from our government.
you've missed my point... you were stating that the government of Germany removed guns from its citizens in the 1930s... which is true... but then that was a dictatorship of the worst kind... a kakistocracy... so are you comparing America to that of 1930s Germany? cos there can be no other reason for you making the link back to 30s Germany as you did. you made the comparison, not me.
You had a goverment that wanted more power, and people that lived under the government. That's pretty much 100% the same. We pretty much have a kakistocracy. Do you think the government is doing a good job? They are a bunch of underqualified elitists who don't listen to their consitutants (i.e. Obamacare). They need term limits, they need to have all laws they pass apply to them.
And no, I don't think everyone should own a guy.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I disagree that it's antiquated. They had healthcare 200 years ago, and didn't include that as a right. It was 150 years old in the 1930s when they rounded up the guns in Germany. That's still a long time. The idea that that government needs to fear and respect it's citizens is the same as it ever was. Our founding fathers knew that, and they were a hell of a lot smarter than us.
your rhetoric about your government is amazingly similar to that of a certain Mr. Jared Loughner :wtf:
Ok i've asked this already and no one could really answer it - given that this person bought a Gloch legally, and you are against tougher laws to stop people like this, what do you suggest be done.
The law said that this guy fit the bill of a "responsible" gun owner, which he clearly was not, so suggestions please? Do we just chalk this down to experience - maybe forget it happened in a week or two?
It's sad that you had to resort to name calling because you couldn't keep up.
I'm sorry that you don't understand what our founding fathers intended. I'm sorry that you think that the government is a great thing that should remove all of your personal responsibility. I'm sorry that you think that politicians should be able to take advantage of their constituents. I’m sorry you think that the government should be able to grow unchecked, and slowly erode our freedoms. I guess that makes me a bad person. Maybe you should move to Venezuela or Cuba to be with more people who think like you.
Well it's really a moot question. The crime is independant from the tool used to commit the crime.
I'm not against background checks. No one should ever be in a hurry to buy a gun (Homer: But I'm angry now!). But would any amount of checking ever have figured out that this guy was a problem? And if he didn't get it legally, he would have gotten it illegally. If he couldn't get it illegally, he would have found other means to accomplish his goal.
LOL - why what do people in Cuba and Venezuela think??
I am trying to understand how you got any of that from any posts, never mind Dunkman's. The last throw of the dice from the logically starved accusar perhaps? Relax fella, just because I and Dunkman believe that our governments are not out to destroy us doesnt't make us part of some 50's commie plot to take over the world.
Everyone knows the Scotts and the Irish took over the world along time ago anyway - probably a reason for all the irrational debates of late
no thanks, i live in a fantastic and free country as it is... but Cuba does sound nice.
The only point here is that he did get it legally, this whole - if he couldnt get a gun he'd have used a teddy bear, is pure speculation - he acquired a gun legally because of Arizona's law, and I'm sure there are 6 peoples families who may disagree about the "moot" question.
I asked a direct question, let's not speculate - facts are - kid bought a gun, was deemed of sound mind and to be responsible enough to purchase and carry a firearm. So if we believe that the kid was a nut, then we have to question how he was allowed to purchase the weapon - hence question the regulations that exist that saw fit to grant him the weapon, it's simple really.
How is it speculation that he would have seeked other means? Do you think that he would have given up if he legally could not purchase a gun? That is speculation on your part. Do you honestly think someone capable of such an act would stop just because he couldn't purchase a gun legally?
He had a specific target on a specific date. He would have found another way.
I remember when President Bush got crucified for trying to use all available sources of information to save innocent lives from terrorist attacks like this. I don't so much mind losing personal freedom if it is in exchange for safety, plus I don't have anything to hide, so wire tap all you want! So I guess you guys are saying that Bush was right? That we should do everything in our power to stop incidents like this?
Have they all come out and said this?
Or is this just speculation too?
I dont know if he would have stopped - it's speculation - all I know is what did happen, and that the laws allowed him to purchase a gun. I'm asking you: given that the law was clearly wrong in that it allowed him purchase a gun, what do you propose we do? Forget everything else, about parents, just answer that question
I don't agree with you on the believe that the family doesn't care what killed their love ones. I can't say for certain as no-one can but i have known families that have dealt with loss and many of them start to look at the bigger issues around their lose and begin to fight against it.
Have they come out and said that their chief concern is what killed their loved ones, or is that just speculation?
It's just common sense. If you know someone that is killed by a drunk driver, would you get mad at the car? Or the car industry? Or the car dealership? Or the person behind the wheel.
I would get mad at the bigger issues which is drinking while driving. that where MADD came from. mothers were sick of losing children to drinking and driving that they began to fight to make punishments harder for peopel who did drink and drive.
Again, rather that keep touting the old "Never Surrender" line, answer the above question posed, what do you propose happen?
Exactly, mothers against DRUNK DRIVERS. They are mad at the person, not the tool!
I just don't see the point to your question. The man did it, not the gun.
How do you propose we keep people who would potentially drink and drive off the road? Maybe institute a 6 month background check process complete with psych evaluation? Is that going to change anything? Would it be perfect? Would it stop all drinking and driving? Or should we just ban cars?
I'm sorry that I didn't respond in less than 3 minutes, I am at work. I'm trying to do other things.
I'm talking about a clearly mentally unstable man who purchased a legal firearm, then shot a number of people killing 6 of them. If a loon can purchase a gun legally then should that not mean we go back and re define what the term legally means when purchasing a firearm - please stick to the point
Are you just going to keep dodging all day?
The man could have used a car to run the people over, or built a pipe bomb. So maybe we should just background check everyone really well, and lock people up who might possibly do anything wrong? Or maybe we should use all available means to stop this stuff, like say Bush's wire taps?
I'm dodging nothing - he didnt use a car, or a bomb - funny examples to use actually given all the regualtion and strict laws, anywho - I am stating what actually happened. Only one dodging is yourself.
The tool is an inanimate object. You are right in saying nobody is mad at it. That would be batshit crazy. The issue is its place in society and use of it.
What they are mad at it is the larger cultural/social environment and policies that control the tool and shape the use of it. Sometimes they are mad at the individual, but not always. A lot of times they will even come out and say they have forgiven the individual.
actually its mother against drunk driving not drunk drivers. Those mother have also gone against alcohol. they have tried to limit the amount of alcohol a person can have when they are driving. They realize that the "tool" which is the alcohol is a weapon just like people realize that guns are a weapon. I just don't know how you can separate a tool and a person. if the person doesn't have access to that tool they can't use it.