Assault Weapons Ban of 2013-How Does ...

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013-How Does Albuquerque Feel About It?

Created by Dawdler2122 on Jan 9, 2013

636 votes

Click on an option to vote

Don't Support It At All-Will Not Comply With It.

Yes, I Support It Wholeheartedly.

I Don't Support It -But Will Comply With It.

I Don't Have Enough Information Yet.

I Don't Know How I Feel About It.

I Don't Care One Way Or The Other.

Everyone, Except Felons & Nuts Should Be Armed!

I Don't Want To Say How I Feel About It.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#124 Jan 14, 2013
Lobo Viejo wrote:
<quoted text>
You are really out of line on this post, KM. How dare you say something like this to any American combat veteran. Both of my older brothers fought in Viet Nam, and you don't know squat about what that war was all about and why it ended the way it did.
The MF'ing politicians made our troops fight with one arm tied behind their back, and never let them fight to win. And so you, a cowardly snot-nosed bible thumper who has never served in the military, come along and blame our fighting soldiers for losing the war. Unbelievable.
What an ignorant, hypocritical, nasty, spiteful and rancid piece of feces you are. Is there anybody you DON'T hate?
Okay...then you admit...the progressive liberals screwed us in 'Nam, just as they are doing now with Afghanistan and Pakistan...on the rest of the military...

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#125 Jan 14, 2013
fmer505-1951 wrote:
<quoted text>SO, which WAR did you fight in? What branch of the military were/are you in?
Unable to knee injury...

My grandfather was in WW2 and my dad in 'Nam...and he largely agrees with me...about 'Nam that is...

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#126 Jan 14, 2013
Lobo Viejo wrote:
This is what KM posted in #68
"So you are a self-hating American bashing bitter ex-soldier who lost us viet nam..."
This was KM's so-called apology in post #70
"Okay...that's true enough... "
Fist of all, KM was probably in diapers or just a pimple-faced adolescent jerking off to nudie pics when the Viet Nam war ended.
Second, the Viet Nam war vets returned home to scorn and being spit on, rather than to ticker tate parades. I saw how my brothers were treated, and it made me ashamed to be an American. And now we have this BS about our soldiers losing the war, no doubt picked up by KM from one of the many hate-mongering websites that he surfs. When is this NATIONAL DISGRACE about how Nam vets were, and are continuing to be, treated going to end?
We all make mistakes, and I have certainly found myself apologizing on Topix for something I wish I had not said.
In this case, KM needs to make a sincere apology to the Viet Nam vets for his ignorant, inflammatory, disgraceful and unpatriotic accusations against them. And, if possible, he needs to use his mistake as a wakeup call that he needs to get whatever anger issues he has under control and be more careful about truth before he posts hateful comments about groups of people.
I posted that to get a rise out him because he was being rude and hateful himself...

Disrespecting friends on here...sorry but if you gonna act like a an idiot...come on now...

That end of life plan coming along okay because obviously your freakishly senile brain is losing it...

Or is that penile? Same difference right?
more

Huntsville, AL

#127 Jan 14, 2013
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay...then you admit...the progressive liberals screwed us in 'Nam, just as they are doing now with Afghanistan and Pakistan...on the rest of the military...
BS.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#128 Jan 14, 2013
I do sincerely apologize to those 'Nam vets that deserve respect and don't run at the mouth disrespect and rudeness as the one I was addressing...not all 'Nam vets are as smacked out as he is...

And I do realize that it was the politicians {mainly once again progressive liberals} that lost us that police action {it wasn't a war}...

However I won't apologize to that particular person...he disgraced all vets for his behavior and I called him on it...

So far Lobo you and some others only call me on anything, what about yourself? What about others...nada...

So I'm calling YOU on your hypocrisy and before you start throwing any more stones in this class house we're in...you need to look at yourself and others...FIRST...

You like violins so much...you remind of me Nero...content to watch everything burn around you and criticize and blame others while you play violin...
Another

Huntsville, AL

#129 Jan 14, 2013
Knightmare wrote:
{mainly once again progressive liberals} that lost us that police action {it wasn't a war}...
lie.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#130 Jan 14, 2013
Just a brief history lesson on political patries and the Vietnam war:
- President Johnson, Democrat, 1963-1969
- President Nixon, Republican, 1969-1974

Point being, no one party was totally to blame for that war.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#131 Jan 14, 2013
Oops, should be parties, not patries - fat fingers.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#132 Jan 14, 2013
CornDogz wrote:
Just a brief history lesson on political patries and the Vietnam war:
- President Johnson, Democrat, 1963-1969
- President Nixon, Republican, 1969-1974
Point being, no one party was totally to blame for that war.
I remembered Johnson...forgot about Nixon being involved...

Always forget that he finished out the sixities...

Then Carter picked it back up for the Dems because of Watergate...

You're essentially right...

No one party was to blame...a specific ideology at the time...just as it is today...contributed to a large part of it...

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#133 Jan 14, 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_action

Police action in military/security studies and international relations is a euphemism for a military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war.

Since World War II, formal declarations of war have been rare. Rather, nations involved in military conflict (especially the major-power nations) sometimes describe the conflict by fighting the war under the auspices of a "police action".

The earliest appearance of the phrase was in July 1947, referring to attempts by Netherlands forces to recolonize Indonesia. The Dutch term politionele acties (police actions) was used for this.

In the early days of the Korean War, President Harry S. Truman referred to the United States response to the North Korean invasion as a "police action" under the aegis of the United Nations.[1]

Also it was used to imply a formal claim of sovereignty by colonial powers, such as in the military actions of the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and other allies during the Indonesian National Revolution (1945–1949) and the Malayan Emergency (1948–1960).

The 1948 annexation, by India, of Hyderabad State, code named Operation Polo, was referred to as a police action by the government.

The Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Kargil War were undeclared wars and hence are sometimes described as police actions.

The Soviet war in Afghanistan was an undeclared war and hence also could be described as a police action, especially since the initial troop deployments into Afghanistan were at the request of the Afghan government.

In other events, the Congress had not made a formal declaration of war, yet the President, as the commander-in-chief, has claimed authority to send in the armed forces when he deemed necessary, with or without the approval of Congress. The legal legitimacy of each of these actions was based upon declarations such as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and Iraq Resolution by Congress and various United Nations resolutions. Nonetheless, Congressional approval has been asserted by means of funding appropriations or other authorizations.[citation needed]

Under international lawFurther information: Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter#Article 42 and Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter
Police actions are authorised specifically by the Security Council under Article 53 (for regional action) or Article 42 (for global action).

Use of the term police action is intended to imply either a claim of formal sovereignty or of authority to intervene militarily at a nation's own discretion.
J Cleese

Albuquerque, NM

#134 Jan 14, 2013
Attaboy, anti-2nd Amendment Gunban Taliban insurgents! Keep skewing the poll through straw voters! Where it really counts, in the country, Assault Weapons (sic) are being sold like hotcakes and being taken to loving homes by free Americans!
Remember what happened in your model of Gun Control, Norway, on July 22, 2011! After dotting every i, filling out every form, passing every criminal, medical, and mental background check, every inspection, detection, and selection, and registration, licensing, fingerprinting and photographing, one of their homegrown psychos murdered 77 teenagers and wounded many others with a rifle and improvised explosive devices! Laws only work on law-abiding people. Your plan is to disarm THEM and leave us be sitting ducks for the predators among us. IT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN! Stay in your crackerbox, overcrowded East Coast, West Coast and Rust-Belt Cities and don't try to impose your failed laws on the rest of us!

http://assaultslingshot.blogspot.com

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#136 Jan 14, 2013
CornDogz wrote:
Just a brief history lesson on political patries and the Vietnam war:
- President Johnson, Democrat, 1963-1969
- President Nixon, Republican, 1969-1974
Point being, no one party was totally to blame for that war.
Actually it was JFK who started it with the advisors and such. Almost 5 years and 30,000 lives by the time Nixon arrived on the scene and predicted that the war/truce would be accomplished before the 1970 Congressional elections. It was not until 1973. By then another 25,000 had lost their lives. He started withdrawing troops immediately upon getting into office, but also started involving the US into Cambodia and Laos. He was an advocate of "practical liberalism" and believed in using government "wisely" for the benefit of all.

Cite: PBS :) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/fe...

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#137 Jan 14, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it was JFK who started it with the advisors and such. Almost 5 years and 30,000 lives by the time Nixon arrived on the scene and predicted that the war/truce would be accomplished before the 1970 Congressional elections. It was not until 1973. By then another 25,000 had lost their lives. He started withdrawing troops immediately upon getting into office, but also started involving the US into Cambodia and Laos. He was an advocate of "practical liberalism" and believed in using government "wisely" for the benefit of all.
Cite: PBS :) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/fe...
Very true as that all was my era where I paid my dues. I wasn't then nor will I ever be a fan of Johnson or Nixon. Both made devastating choices upon our population then, not to mention non-US deaths.

In early 1965 Johnson authorized Operation Rolling Thunder, the wholesale bombing of North Vietnam, an planned 8 week campaign that lasted 3 years instead.

July 28, 1965 - Johnson increases US troop strength in Vietnam from 75,000 to 125,000 and more if necessary. To accomplish that he said the monthly draft calls would be raised from 17,000 to 35,000.

Anyway, I'm off topic here so back to assault weapons. Sure would be amusing to see just ONE definition of an assault weapon as opposed to the many we have floating about now.
Concerned Citizen

Albuquerque, NM

#138 Jan 14, 2013
Knightmare wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P olice_action
Police action in military/security studies and international relations is a euphemism for a military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war.
Since World War II, formal declarations of war have been rare. Rather, nations involved in military conflict (especially the major-power nations) sometimes describe the conflict by fighting the war under the auspices of a "police action".
The earliest appearance of the phrase was in July 1947, referring to attempts by Netherlands forces to recolonize Indonesia. The Dutch term politionele acties (police actions) was used for this.
In the early days of the Korean War, President Harry S. Truman referred to the United States response to the North Korean invasion as a "police action" under the aegis of the United Nations.[1]
Also it was used to imply a formal claim of sovereignty by colonial powers, such as in the military actions of the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and other allies during the Indonesian National Revolution (1945–1949) and the Malayan Emergency (1948–1960).
The 1948 annexation, by India, of Hyderabad State, code named Operation Polo, was referred to as a police action by the government.
The Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Kargil War were undeclared wars and hence are sometimes described as police actions.
The Soviet war in Afghanistan was an undeclared war and hence also could be described as a police action, especially since the initial troop deployments into Afghanistan were at the request of the Afghan government.
In other events, the Congress had not made a formal declaration of war, yet the President, as the commander-in-chief, has claimed authority to send in the armed forces when he deemed necessary, with or without the approval of Congress. The legal legitimacy of each of these actions was based upon declarations such as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and Iraq Resolution by Congress and various United Nations resolutions. Nonetheless, Congressional approval has been asserted by means of funding appropriations or other authorizations.[citation needed]
Under international lawFurther information: Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter#Article 42 and Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter
Police actions are authorised specifically by the Security Council under Article 53 (for regional action) or Article 42 (for global action).
Use of the term police action is intended to imply either a claim of formal sovereignty or of authority to intervene militarily at a nation's own discretion.
Knightmare, you did a hurtful thing by blaming American Soldiers for the Vietnam debacle. It was the government which was responsible for the whole thing, not the soldiers. To the best of my knowledge, I don't recall reading about any defeats the American Army or Marines suffered during the War. Just the opposite. The US politicians are still making the same mistakes since Korea, then Vietnam. They are entering wars on the ground that they can't win. It's not only that America couldn't win them, the people that were there before the Americans couldn't win them either- e.g., the French in Indo-China; the British, then the Russians in Afghanistan, etc. Blame the politicians, not the soldiers, marines, etc.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#139 Jan 14, 2013
Concerned Citizen wrote:
<quoted text>
Knightmare, you did a hurtful thing by blaming American Soldiers for the Vietnam debacle. It was the government which was responsible for the whole thing, not the soldiers. To the best of my knowledge, I don't recall reading about any defeats the American Army or Marines suffered during the War. Just the opposite. The US politicians are still making the same mistakes since Korea, then Vietnam. They are entering wars on the ground that they can't win. It's not only that America couldn't win them, the people that were there before the Americans couldn't win them either- e.g., the French in Indo-China; the British, then the Russians in Afghanistan, etc. Blame the politicians, not the soldiers, marines, etc.
I don't think it is that we can't win them {by the way I did apologize to all vets that deserve respect...my grandfather...I learned a lot from him...did not look kindly those that would pull what the one that was being disrepectful and disgracing his fellow vets by hiding behind them} it is more that we are unwilling to do what is necessary to win them...we are trying to wage "war" {those like 'Nam and Korea were undeclared and by law police actions} in some kind of humane way while the enemy fights us with all they have. Bush actually did declare war on terrorism and yet we're still pulling punches...we need to do what we did in WW2 and unleash hell upon these terrorists and all regimes and countries that harbor them and support them...but the politicians don't have the backbone to do what is necessary any longer...after all they want to get reelected.
TheatreTech01

Denver, CO

#141 Jan 14, 2013
3000 children are killed each year by firearms. Is that acceptable to the NRA? Are those kids just collateral damage in the war to keep guns, magazines and ammo available to anyone who wants them? Are the slaughtered students of Newtown the cost you're willing to pay to keep background checks out of gun shows and private transaction? Think about your own kids and grandkids before you answer.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#142 Jan 14, 2013
TheatreTech01 wrote:
3000 children are killed each year by firearms. Is that acceptable to the NRA? Are those kids just collateral damage in the war to keep guns, magazines and ammo available to anyone who wants them? Are the slaughtered students of Newtown the cost you're willing to pay to keep background checks out of gun shows and private transaction? Think about your own kids and grandkids before you answer.
How many babies killed in the womb through abortion? Slaughtered, mutilated, and then sold for parts and for stem cells? Is that acceptable?

Or how about a tyrannical government that would fill the vacuum created when the populace is unarmed and can't defend themselves either from criminals or the government...

Stop blaming the guns, blame the behavior behind the guns and look to change that...
TheatreTech01

Denver, CO

#143 Jan 14, 2013
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
How many babies killed in the womb through abortion? Slaughtered, mutilated, and then sold for parts and for stem cells? Is that acceptable?
Or how about a tyrannical government that would fill the vacuum created when the populace is unarmed and can't defend themselves either from criminals or the government...
Stop blaming the guns, blame the behavior behind the guns and look to change that...
Knightmare. All interesting points, but not germain to the topic. So you're okay with killing children so you can keep gun control at its current level? Intetesting. How many of your own childern are you willing to sacrifice for a 100 round magazine? Are you ready to assault a school so you don't have to have a background check? If not you personally, some other blackclad psycopath who was able to aquire a bushmaster as a "collector" from another like minded collector. You do have children, or dont you?

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#144 Jan 14, 2013
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/201...

180 children under the age of 11 killed by firearms in 2010. Wish it were 0.

Love the number cited as in the thousands. Look at the age cut-off for children on that one...19? And how many gang-bangers, drug dealers etc..Give a CDC cite.

2009 had 9,000 "children" (cut off age 19) die in car crashes, suffocation, drowning, poisoning, fires and falls (being the most common). One would think that firearms would be mentioned if it accounts for one third. But then again, it is only the CDC.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#145 Jan 14, 2013
CornDogz wrote:
Oops, should be parties, not patries - fat fingers.
Pasties? Lol

Yes, CD, that war was a mess, from beginning to end.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Albuquerque Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Good Old Days 2 (Apr '10) 4 min Frmr-fmer505-1951 113,951
Today I Saw (Nov '09) 10 min Frmr-fmer505-1951 62,948
Name a foreign leader you admire. 1 hr Peter W 54
News Apartment fire injures three, displaces two fam... (Mar '08) 2 hr jamie 6
Whatever happened to ____________? Fill in the ... (Oct '08) 5 hr Raymond 572
News Martinez prefers to stick to issues (Jun '10) 5 hr Nope 6,983
Poll Who's hotter at KOB-TV? (Dec '11) 12 hr Fromozo 39

Albuquerque Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Albuquerque Mortgages