Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5741  
Old 12-19-12, 02:08
BroDeal's Avatar
BroDeal BroDeal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Above 5000 feet
Posts: 12,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom375 View Post
I kind of followed you're argument up to here Bold bit.Are you saying that most people carry guns these days in the U.S. so that they "can fight tyranny and bring down the Obama government? - what by shooting them? - And this is more important than a few kiddies dying at a school coz statistically they had more chance if being hit by lightening? - but hey - admittedly I'm a foreigner, certainly ain't trying to preach, just find the viewpoint fascinating.
The right to possess guns is intrinsic in U.S. culture. It derives not just from a frontier society, or the afterglow of what what frontier life used to be, but a philisophical view that the people should ultimately have power over the government and the means to change the government. It is a recognition that no government lasts forever, and during a transition to whatever system comes next, an armed population has a better chance preventing a tryrannical form of government from coming to power.

That does not mean the people need to march on Washington to take out Obama. It means the right is retained for possible needs of our grandchildren or their grandchildren or their grandchildren's grandchildren. It is the most important right in the Bill of Rights. The first amendment gives the people the right to effect change by peaceful means. The second amendment gives the people to means to force change if the first method fails and the situation becomes intolerable.

Now with modern weapons, some of this is fantasy based on weapon technology of the 18th and 19th century. Revolution in present times with a government possessing the full array of modern arms would be incredibly brutal, as the Afghanis have discovered, but this philisophical ideal is one of the foundations of American Consitutional thinking.
__________________
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
Reply With Quote
  #5742  
Old 12-19-12, 02:18
Amsterhammer's Avatar
Amsterhammer Amsterhammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 2,924
Default

I posted this in a slightly different form on Tuesday afternoon in reply to posts that are now around five pages back, but some mod who has not had the decency to either come forward or even send me a PM, felt it necessary to delete it, presumably because of one sentence about another poster. I have removed that sentence and made some slight alterations.

I will reply to your latest gun apologia, posted just above, after I wake up tomorrow BD, as it really is bedtime now. But I'm sure that my fellow ex-pat, pantywaist, pseudo-intellectual, and sanctimonious academic, Rhub, will have demolished your latest pseudo-libertarian babble by the time I get up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
That's okay. I cannot take seriously anyone who was stupid enough to believe Lance Armstrong.

I'm sure those sitting on the Supreme Court will be appalled that you don't take them seriously either. They probably lose a lot of sleep over it.

The second amendment is like the liberals version of conservatives and Roe v. Wade.
Man, in that case there sure are a lot of people whom you don't take seriously, huh? It's a pity that you never applied your amazing prescience and insight about LA to subjects which, in the great scheme of things, are infinitely more important than your obsession with one cyclist's doping. Also good to see you standing up for the most demented, right wing SCOTUS we have ever had. You've finally dropped all pretense of being a reasonable human being and shown your true reactionary colors. Well done.


Quote:
A europeanized pseudo intellectual pantywaist won't get far telling Americans that their Bill of Rights is antequated and needs to be repealed or modified to suit the views of countries that have a history of relying on Uncle Sam to protect them. What other amendments do you plan on repealing? How about the first? You could get rid of those pesky violent video games and movies as well as Fox News. What about the fourteenth? You could do something about the majority of violence, which is caused by non-whites. What other rights should we submit to you for your approval?

"Pantywaist"? Excellent. With this splendid example of hyperbolic, xenophobic, flag-waving paranoia, you have just outed yourself as one of the unreconstructed gun retards who is co-responsible for the current state of affairs. There is really nothing to add to my friend the pantywaist's comprehensive demolition of your gross hypocrisy and lack of both humanity and common sense. Your ploy of reductio ad absurdum may work with your fellow gun nuts, but not with me. Nor, I suspect, with many others here.

Quote:
The problem with liberals is that they have an incredibly poor grasp of the statistics of risk. All they do is wail, "Think of the children!" With their touchy feely crying they refuse to put things in perspective, so they flail around looking for a simplistic solution that always reinforces one of their pet issues.
Yet more evidence that you are, in fact, nothing more than a wingnut fellow traveler. Your cover really is blown. 'Touchy feely crying" - pathetic.

Quote:
Every right has a price. The price of gun rights is more murders and the occasional mass shooting by crazies. The chance of dying in a mass shooting in the United States is on par with the chance of being killed by lightning. For every mentally ill person involved in a mass shooting, there are hundreds that kill one or two people; but they don't get the headlines and cannot be used for the liberal agenda, so no one says anything about those litle tragedies, which add up to a far far greater amount of human damage than a few spectacular ones.
Yup, and the hundreds that kill 'only' one or two also use guns that are too easily obtainable. And the price of all these deaths, as well as the occasional mass murders, is worth paying so that you can maintain your holy, misinterpreted, right to own as many killing toys as you want. Just because the Second Amendment says so, and for no other reason. Oh, and in case you have to fight the government. Even some conservative NRA members are coming out and changing their minds about their previously held attitudes to guns, but BD will claim his gun birthright to the death, because of an outdated 18th century piece of paper.

Quote:
Roughly 40% of households in the U.S. own guns. That has to be about 60 million households. The vast majority own and use guns responsibly, yet you want to ban guns based on an incident that killed a third as many people as die every day in traffic accidents. I know it will shock you, but a bunch of those who die in auto accidents are children. Their deaths are just as tragic as those killed in mass shootings and there are a hell of a lot more of them. Get your priorities straight so you can advocate doing something that will have the greatest effect.
So, 60m households own 300m guns. The mere fact that these are only the known amount of guns out there means that there are almost certainly many more than 300m. The fact that this statistic does not embarrass and shame you to your very core for the madness that it so clearly is, again outs you as an unrepentant wingnut gun lover. The fact that you can do no better than drag out the discredited, specious and entirely irrelevant analogy with cars, demonstrates that you are incapable of reason. You have also not seen me call for a complete ban. Sadly, a ban is unrealistic in view of the humongous number of weapons out there. I'd to see some seriously restrictive controls - but that won't happen either.


Quote:
Have you no shame in demagoguing your hysteria about guns using dead children before their corpses are even cold? How dare you. How dare you!
Have you no shame claiming that the occasional death of 20 children is just part of the price that has to be paid so that you and your fellow gun retards can continue to play macho-man with your kill toys? How dare you!?


Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
You would have to ask Amsterhammer about that. He seems to be an expert on that sort of thinking. As for me I don't care what most people on one side think.
That's right, as long as you can buy, keep, and play with, as many kill toys as you want, you don't give a fcuk about anything or anyone else, or how conflicted you are with your other views published here. More true colors, keep it up Bro.

Quote:
Then when there are no options left for the mentally ill unless they commit crimes, acts that are particularly vicious can be used by rhubroma to call for banning whatever the European ivory tower set has decided Americans should not be allowed to own.
Another fallacious, juvenile, flag waving attempt at reductio ad absurdum. Your thrashing around for something to beat the "European ivory tower set" with is getting more desperate and pathetic with each post. When I last looked, both Rhub and I were Americans, and as entitled to our opinions, and to express them here or elsewhere, as you are to yours. And yes, we firmly believe, as do the very vast majority of people in the rest of the civilized world outside of wingnut America, as well as a growing number of non-wingnuts, and even some ex-wingnuts within the US, that 'our' opinion about guns, and the virtually unfettered, unrestricted, gun ownership now possible in the US, is the one that holds the moral high ground. You represent a blinkered and shrinking minority, so blinded by your claimed "right" to possess weapons capable of mass slaughter, that you have totally lost sight of the fact that the current situation in the US is one of your own, historic, gun lobby making. The current status quo is one that no reasonable person should want to continue, without some sort of meaningful change to existing gun laws, together with many other measures that need to be taken. But, guns should be at the top of any to-do list. Instead of showing any shame or remorse about, or even questioning, your own small part in maintaining this disgraceful state of affairs, you continue to aggressively assert your 'rights'. Speaks volumes about you, dude.

So BD, I'd hurry on out and kill some critters before the Feds come for your all your guns, and you wind up dead defending your rights.
__________________
The LOTE has won, all hail the LOTE.
Reply With Quote
  #5743  
Old 12-19-12, 03:15
BroDeal's Avatar
BroDeal BroDeal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Above 5000 feet
Posts: 12,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amsterhammer View Post
babble babble babble

Yet more evidence that you are, in fact, nothing more than a wingnut fellow traveler. Your cover really is blown. 'Touchy feely crying" - pathetic.

babble babble babble

So BD, I'd hurry on out and kill some critters before the Feds come for your all your guns, and you wind up dead defending your rights.
I don't own any guns. The probability that I would need to use one is very low, I don't believe in hunting but I don't care much if other people do so as long as they are not hunting animals just for trophies, and I don't find target shooting much fun.

I do find you a hiliarious example of a pigeonholer who displays the brain activity somewhere between that of a sheep and a lemming. One has to wonder what other issues you use to decide whether someone is a closet wingnut.

I should PM Scott to find out the benefits of my newfound wingnut status. There is probably a secret handshake, a texas barbecue sauce recipe, and maybe even use of Romney's dancing horse for one weekend a year. I don't want to miss out on any of the goodies.
__________________
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken

Last edited by BroDeal; 12-19-12 at 04:31.
Reply With Quote
  #5744  
Old 12-19-12, 04:49
rhubroma's Avatar
rhubroma rhubroma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amsterhammer View Post
I posted this in a slightly different form on Tuesday afternoon in reply to posts that are now around five pages back, but some mod who has not had the decency to either come forward or even send me a PM, felt it necessary to delete it, presumably because of one sentence about another poster. I have removed that sentence and made some slight alterations.

I will reply to your latest gun apologia, posted just above, after I wake up tomorrow BD, as it really is bedtime now. But I'm sure that my fellow ex-pat, pantywaist, pseudo-intellectual, and sanctimonious academic, Rhub, will have demolished your latest pseudo-libertarian babble by the time I get up.
...
I have no intention of engaging BroDeal on this point any further, unless the situation demands it. He thinks mine is emotional rant, which, as all my reasoned points and conclusions indicated, couldn't be furthest from it. I expressed my thoughts, but instead of addressing the issues I raised so far, he launches into an expose that dodges everything that's pertinant to the issue at stake. He believes that a hyper-rationalization of events can be a means to diminish their actual social and civil impact. Yet this is a false methodology, whereas the callous insensitivity such a detached hyper-rationalism produces not only evidences the error in his method, but also offends every sense of decency before the human tragedy.

I will say this, therefore, that approaching this problem from a statistical perspective is wrong, for it is not one of numerical ratios, but one of addressing the causes behind the specific catastrophic instances and working toward finding solutions to diminish the chance they will be repeated. I couldn't care less how much more probable it is that I might die in a car accident, or the various other possible causes behind my own extinction.

What interests me are these particular instances and what can be done to effectively combat them. It goes without saying that I think one thing which must immediately be done (also for the memory of these kids sake), is for the state to intervene in enforcing stricter regulations on the sale of firearms. Though this would be only one of a serious of measures to be contemplated and set into effect.

Lastly the current American folly of gun mania is inextricably linked to market determinants (yes, Bro, this is also free market phenomenon) that are a kultur, which of course is embedded within a national spirit that places greatest emphasis on individual empowerment rather than collective action. This, though, is what will be much harder to reprogram, if it even can be reprogramed. I don't know how this is to be done, only that it must be to effectively limit the recrudescence of what has simply become an intolerable circumstance in today's America, which the entire world sees, but of which many Americans still deny.

Anything else is BS, including Bro's last post.

Last edited by rhubroma; 12-20-12 at 09:48.
Reply With Quote
  #5745  
Old 12-19-12, 10:54
red_flanders's Avatar
red_flanders red_flanders is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,774
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom375 View Post
That's as maybe, but surely having access to guns is the issue when killing so many indiscriminately. He killed all of those people in a matter of minutes. Using guns has to be the easiest non- pre-meditated way of doing this. Of the two I think guns are more realistic as there is not much forethought needed and therefore less time to change your mind. This person from accounts I've read was mentally ill. If that's the case and he has easy access to guns he only has to flip out for half an hour get the guns and roll up in whatever sleepy town is least expecting it - and no-one's got a chance. If he had no access to guns - What's he going to do? Maybe get a knife try and get into the school - there is no way as many people die also he's got far higher chance of getting apprehended before perhaps anyone is killed. Also I think there is more of a chance of him bottling it completely - spraying a load of bullets around is not the same as having to kill a load of people with your hands/knife. It's too easy to kill the defenceless with guns, + surprise element.

Btw - I'm not completely anti-gun if people use them for hunting/sport etc. that's their business, but license holders need to be properly regulated, and vetted, not just some pretense at it. Also don't see the need for military style weapons being available down the local mall next to the golf section or something. Military style weapons (semi-automatics etc.) should be just that for the military only not for some **** to get a hard-on about himself..
I really could not agree more and most of America agrees as well.

What are we going to do about it?
Reply With Quote
  #5746  
Old 12-19-12, 11:16
Glenn_Wilson's Avatar
Glenn_Wilson Glenn_Wilson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Newfoundland
Posts: 2,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeNphilly View Post
I hunt, I have 12 guns in my house. I have an AR-15 type weapon, and I have an M1 that my father bought for me 1991 before the assult weapon ban, I have been shooting guns since I was five...just to give some perspective of my background. My good friend Joe Manchien from West Virginia, hit the nail on the head...people do not need 100 round, or hell even 30 round clips for hunting.

I don't agree there should be no guns in America, but law enforcement needs to crack down on the straw puchase people that are feeding the arms race in Philly and other cities.

Just clear some of the missimformation about the AR-15 that I have seen on many websites, the AR-15 is a single shot gun, that looks damn cool to gun people...that is all. It is not an automatic rifle, such as the M-16, Ak-47. I have hunting rifles with much more power and range then the AR-15. It is made to make huge money for the gun companies, because of the look of it and the ability to stack so many options on it that a $700 gun quickly can develop into a $1500 gun, with light mounts, scope mount, many shoulder stock options and so forth...In WV you can hunt with one, in PA, you can hunt with no semi-automatic(single shot when you pull the trigger) gun. I use my level action 30-30 for deer hunting in PA.

I hate the fact in the US, 400 people in Philly get killed every year and no one really cares, but shoot up a mall/movie house/or school in the suburbs and the Constitution must be changed by the 6 o'clock news.

Mental Health issues are a huge issue in the US, since most of the funding was cut years ago, as many of you are finding out now. I do not know the soultion for all of the crime and gun issues in the US, but hopefully 3-4 years down the road some good discussions can finially bring some middle ground to this issue.
The M16A1 vietnam era was automatic. After that the M16A2 was three round burst not automatic. Now as far as I was aware and keep in mind I am considered a old man ....when I was in the Marines the AR15 was the smaller barrel and stock / tactical version. That is what we used in Desert Storm Desert Shield. Since then a large conversion for grunts and other forces has been taking place. The M4A1 which is automatic is smaller and lighter and has been used since 1994. It is a weapon of choice for small tactical units such as Marine Corps Recon.

I am not sure but am willing to guess that the majority of bushmaster and replica civilian M4 type weapons are owned by Soldier wannabees. No offense to any one who owns them but I feel that way when I see them. They want to play soldier. The accuracy as you note in your post is crap compared to a traditional hunting rifle.

I work with or worked with some real winners. Let me explain. At my old office they had to put up signs indicating that having weapons in your vehicle or bags was not permitted in the building or the parking garage. I sat next to and worked with a couple of people who I know brought weapons into work within their bags. WTF???? One of these people was talking just before President Obama was elected for the first time that he was buying up ammunition and other weapons. He was placed on the FBI watch list eventually. Who the hell buys that much ammunition and weapons? He was all bent out of shape because he had to wait a extra period of time before he could get all his ammunition. That is the type of guy who I stay clear of.

Did anyone see CNN last night? That guy Piers M. got into a name calling match with someone over the weapons.
__________________
something less offensive
Reply With Quote
  #5747  
Old 12-19-12, 11:16
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
The right to possess guns is intrinsic in U.S. culture. It derives not just from a frontier society, or the afterglow of what what frontier life used to be, but a philisophical view that the people should ultimately have power over the government and the means to change the government. It is a recognition that no government lasts forever, and during a transition to whatever system comes next, an armed population has a better chance preventing a tryrannical form of government from coming to power.

That does not mean the people need to march on Washington to take out Obama. It means the right is retained for possible needs of our grandchildren or their grandchildren or their grandchildren's grandchildren. It is the most important right in the Bill of Rights. The first amendment gives the people the right to effect change by peaceful means. The second amendment gives the people to means to force change if the first method fails and the situation becomes intolerable.

Now with modern weapons, some of this is fantasy based on weapon technology of the 18th and 19th century. Revolution in present times with a government possessing the full array of modern arms would be incredibly brutal, as the Afghanis have discovered, but this philisophical ideal is one of the foundations of American Consitutional thinking.
A tyrannical form of government? You mean like in ancient Rome or just in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? That aside, would you like me to point out the contradiction in your first paragraph, or can you do it yourself?

So even though you have zero possibility of talking back to state power, you believe that somehow that vestige of individual autonomy might be preserved for our grandchildren? Interesting notion, considering it was near impossible to protest the 2004 Republican convention in New York in any meaningful sense without getting zip tied and thrown into a storage container. Never mind the more recent developments last year with OWS, etc. What was salient about those demonstrations and the unpleasantries that many experienced at the hands of the police for the first time was not merely the fact that some well educated liberals got roughed up and passed through one of the more vile intake systems in this country--but rather that they saw it for the daily reality that it is for many who have zero of your so-called "rights"--some by choice, buy many also by design. Equally, that they realized the fiction of being able to simply bring force against state power. Not on those terms.

So basically what you're proposing is a symbolic vestige of a political philosophy which has long since ceased to exist? By saying it's intrinsic to the DNA of the country. You do remember another nation that rose to power on that kind of rhetoric?

I wouldn't argue your basic terms of the first amendment, but your invocation of the second seems debatable to say the least. You show me the scenario in which an indignant populace is going to get traction against the state in those terms. Sorry, bro, the revolution in the west will not be an explosion somewhere down the road, and maybe rather than clinging to that kind of archaic principle, those who are truly concerned might do more to effect transformation for the better in the present.

Otherwise it's just facile and superficial nihilism. Arguing that the second amendment will help save us from corporate takeover is equally improbable.

Back to your examples: I've been hit (or nudged at least) by various drivers throughout my life while on a bike--all negligent to varying degrees. Some contrite, some belligerent; I've also had guns pulled on me: by police, by rural, pac-northwest rednecks, by party crashing, low-level, meth type dirtbags with attitude and by New York addicts just looking for money.

I don't see any reason to be supportive of any of those types--nor to support their cultures for whatever reasons. That's a point you seem to be missing. Lives are disposable all over the planet, but nowhere more so than under the aegis of a society that utterly devalues them as the US does--never in such a multiplicity of ways.

On your repeated remarks about foreigners and expats (along with intellectuals): way to play the regressive, isolationist card. I guess only iconoclastic (unless they're talking about the Constitution) shut-ins have a voice in national policy.

I'll see if I can remember that the next time I move back to one of the urban coasts and a good proportion of the townies in one or another of the wilderness states with a GDP of Biafra (once you subtract the federal agenda and energy interests) starts talking about what "Americans" think, believe, know, have a right to, etc.

On that score, I'd be deeply, deeply curious to see how long your foundational, revolutionary philosophy holds up and how you would react if you ever get designated anything near an enemy of the state--nothing near the level of Guantanamo of course-- because you've been exercising the mildest of your first amendment rights (while your unused second amendment rights remain in full force of course). Come back and tell me how you find that working out.

Patrick makes a valid point about the lack of outrage regarding the Chicago incidents, but arguably, at least one distinction between some of the people there and the kids in the school is that the kids had zero say in the matter. The same can be said of those who die in cars obviously, but there is the matter of intent which seems to drop out of your risk analysis. This is something that goes beyond gun control and bone literal readings of the second amendment--among other things it bears on the mental health issue that's been raised. The constitution isn't worth much when the vast majority of its citizens can no longer rise to the principles and values around which it was ostensibly constructed.

Last edited by aphronesis; 12-19-12 at 17:39.
Reply With Quote
  #5748  
Old 12-19-12, 11:30
Glenn_Wilson's Avatar
Glenn_Wilson Glenn_Wilson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Newfoundland
Posts: 2,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by red_flanders View Post
I really could not agree more and most of America agrees as well.

What are we going to do about it?
Maybe the actual enforcement of current laws and then someone needs to take a look at how the permits are given out to purchase weapons. The process needs some help with regards to hand guns and assault military style weapons. Mental health needs to be looked into for the purchaser and the immediate family also.
__________________
something less offensive
Reply With Quote
  #5749  
Old 12-19-12, 12:25
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,471
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom375 View Post
That's as maybe, but surely having access to guns is the issue when killing so many indiscriminately. He killed all of those people in a matter of minutes. Using guns has to be the easiest non- pre-meditated way of doing this. Of the two I think guns are more realistic as there is not much forethought needed and therefore less time to change your mind. This person from accounts I've read was mentally ill. If that's the case and he has easy access to guns he only has to flip out for half an hour get the guns and roll up in whatever sleepy town is least expecting it - and no-one's got a chance. If he had no access to guns - What's he going to do? Maybe get a knife try and get into the school - there is no way as many people die also he's got far higher chance of getting apprehended before perhaps anyone is killed. Also I think there is more of a chance of him bottling it completely - spraying a load of bullets around is not the same as having to kill a load of people with your hands/knife. It's too easy to kill the defenceless with guns, + surprise element.

Btw - I'm not completely anti-gun if people use them for hunting/sport etc. that's their business, but license holders need to be properly regulated, and vetted, not just some pretense at it. Also don't see the need for military style weapons being available down the local mall next to the golf section or something. Military style weapons (semi-automatics etc.) should be just that for the military only not for some **** to get a hard-on about himself..
The picture is becoming pretty clear that Lanza didn't just snap... there are signs that this was planned.

Without access to guns, what would he have done? It's a good question. MikeNphilly posted this;

1927 School Bombing Was Deadliest In American History

Quote:
The 1927 school bombing occurred at a schoolhouse in Bath, Michigan. Forty five people were killed during the incident, including the bomber, 55-year-old Andrew Kehoe.
Quote:
Kehoe was upset about a new tax levied upon the community to build a new school. Kehoe, who was a board member at the school as well as the caretaker, blamed the new school for the financial problems that led him to lose his farm. Kehoe was so enraged with the new tax that he decided to blow up the building.
Quote:
Kehoe killed his wife and lit his barn on fire before making his way to the school. While firefighters were putting out the fire on his farm he set off several bombs at the school.
Quote:
Several teachers and students lost their lives during the initial attack but Kehoe still wasn’t quite out of explosives. The 55-year-old farmer waited in his car next to the school for the authorities. When they arrived, he blew up the car, killing himself, the superintendent and several other people.
http://www.inquisitr.com/442729/1927...rican-history/


So if Lanza had no access to guns what might he have done? It's impossible to say but another method of mass killing is not out of the realm of possibility.
__________________
"It makes no sense. Fire the electorate let the people speak for themselves"
Reply With Quote
  #5750  
Old 12-19-12, 12:48
patricknd's Avatar
patricknd patricknd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: houston texas
Posts: 1,612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn_Wilson View Post
Maybe the actual enforcement of current laws and then someone needs to take a look at how the permits are given out to purchase weapons. The process needs some help with regards to hand guns and assault military style weapons. Mental health needs to be looked into for the purchaser and the immediate family also.
that makes too much sense.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:59.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.