SHOOTING AT MEDINA GUN Show!

[-tip-]

Duke for Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>
There's an error in your logic. It is right here, in this sentence your write:
"And you all believe if you present factual evidence of rare gun-involved massacres it supports your personal conclusion that all gunowners are raving lunatics bent on mass murder."
I'll let you figure out for yourself what it is, since you claim to be intelligent.
Good luck.
woof

From a poster who refuses to follow her logic to its natural conclusion?

I think not.

[Seriouslady]

BUCK JOHNSON wrote:

This is gettting ridiculous. There are too many dolts in society, this is like that idiot who went out to eat and ended up shooting his wife in the leg by accident with a concealed handgun. Purchasing a gun should be accompanied by an IQ/Pysch test.

Doesn't matter what kind of background check they require. Criminals will always get guns and will always modify them.

The tragedy of man's inhumanity to man is as old as time and will always occur. There are things you can do to keep yourself and family as safe as possible, but never 100% safe.

And buying a gun that you are not proficient with is a bad idea and will not keep you safe. It may increase the likelihood of you being shot with your own weapon.

Stiffening the punishment for gun related crimes may be a bit of a detterent, but it will not stop the shooters who are mentally ill. They usually take their own lives anyway. And criminals do not think they are ever going to get caught.

[Che Reagan Christ]

-tip- wrote:

<quoted text>
And you all believe if you present factual evidence of rare gun-involved massacres it supports your personal conclusion that all gunowners are raving lunatics bent on mass murder. You're trying to justify your own fascist nature...you know, like that of the gun-grabbing Hitler, Stalin, et al. The massacres commited by them could not occur until the populace was disarmed.
See how that works?

Hitler wasn't a gun grabber. He loosened gun laws.

[BUCK JOHNSON]

-tip- wrote:

<quoted text>
And what would you do with drivers, considering the annual incidents of parents backing over their own children, and snagging their children in tractor decks?
IQ/Psych tests for the operation of all inanimate objects capable of accidental personal injury?

What would you do, absolutely nothing?? Pathetic, and tripe. All attempts at being proactive, are met with resistance by focusing on other topics. The issue is guns, not drivers, dummy.

[-tip-]

BUCK JOHNSON wrote:

<quoted text>
What would you do, absolutely nothing?? Pathetic, and tripe. All attempts at being proactive, are met with resistance by focusing on other topics. The issue is guns, not drivers, dummy.

More people are killed and injured annually by automobiles and tractors than by guns.

The issue is control of the populace.
And nothing else.

[-tip-]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
Hitler wasn't a gun grabber. He loosened gun laws.

LMAO @ ignorance.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/98095597/3/III-HITL...

Excerpt:

This article addresses German firearms laws and Nazi policies and practices to disarm German citizens, particularly political opponents and Jews. It begins withan account of post-World War I chaos, which led to the enactment in 1928 by the liberal Weimar republic of Germany’s first comprehensive gun control law. Next, the Nazi seizure of power in 1933 was consolidated by massive searches and seizures of firearms from political opponents, who were invariably described as "communists." After five years of repression and eradication of dissidents, Hitler signed a new gun control law in 1938, which benefitted Nazi party members and entities, but denied firearm ownership to enemies of the state.

Later that year, in Kristallnacht [the Night of the Broken Glass], in one fell swoop, the Nazi regime disarmed Germany’s Jews. Without any ability to defend themselves, the Jewish population could easily be sent to concentration camps for the Final Solution. After World War II began, Nazi authorities continued to register and mistrust civilian firearm owners, and German resistance to the Nazi regime was unsuccessful.

[Che Reagan Christ]

-tip- wrote:

<quoted text>
LMAO @ ignorance.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/98095597/3/III-HITL...
Excerpt:
This article addresses German firearms laws and Nazi policies and practices to disarm German citizens, particularly political opponents and Jews. It begins withan account of post-World War I chaos, which led to the enactment in 1928 by the liberal Weimar republic of Germany’s first comprehensive gun control law. Next, the Nazi seizure of power in 1933 was consolidated by massive searches and seizures of firearms from political opponents, who were invariably described as "communists." After five years of repression and eradication of dissidents, Hitler signed a new gun control law in 1938, which benefitted Nazi party members and entities, but denied firearm ownership to enemies of the state.
Later that year, in Kristallnacht [the Night of the Broken Glass], in one fell swoop, the Nazi regime disarmed Germany’s Jews. Without any ability to defend themselves, the Jewish population could easily be sent to concentration camps for the Final Solution. After World War II began, Nazi authorities continued to register and mistrust civilian firearm owners, and German resistance to the Nazi regime was unsuccessful.

The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did.“The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_...

[-tip-]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did.“The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_...

LaPierre?

The work referenced was authored by Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D. from Florida State University, J.D. from Georgetown University. Located in Fairfax, Virginia, he litigates constitutional law issues in the federal courts, including the Supreme Court.

[-tip-]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did.“The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_...

And further...what kind of pseudo law expert [writing in your Salon article], makes this brazen statement:

"The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general."

Epic FAIL.

[FKA Reader]

-tip- wrote:

<quoted text>
And you all believe if you present factual evidence of rare gun-involved massacres it supports your personal conclusion that all gunowners are raving lunatics bent on mass murder. You're trying to justify your own fascist nature...you know, like that of the gun-grabbing Hitler, Stalin, et al. The massacres commited by them could not occur until the populace was disarmed.
See how that works?

Actually, I think that you are historically inaccurate.

However, the point is that we need to find the way to keep dangerous inanimate objects out of the hands of people who are too stupid, too insane or too criminally oriented to be trusted not to use them in ways that are bound to be murderous.

You seem to be arguing on the side of fighting fire with fire. And your side doesn't seem to be winning--when it comes to preventing any of the stupid, insane or criminally oriented folks from wreaking havoc--or simply accidentally shooting folks.

Face it. There is no way that increasing the prevalence of guns is going to make gun violence (or deaths and accidental shootings) go down.

[-tip-]

Bill Hates wrote:

Here is a video compilation of these idiots with guns:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/gun-...
And this incident is just one more reason why guns should be outlawed.

Cars first. They are imminently more deadly to humans.

[FKA Reader]

BUCK JOHNSON wrote:

This is gettting ridiculous. There are too many dolts in society, this is like that idiot who went out to eat and ended up shooting his wife in the leg by accident with a concealed handgun. Purchasing a gun should be accompanied by an IQ/Pysch test.

Or the poor guy who accidentally shot his kid while getting in the car just after her purchased a gun. Kid died, by the way. I don't envy that guy's nightmares.

[FKA Reader]

-tip- wrote:

<quoted text>
From a poster who refuses to follow her logic to its natural conclusion?
I think not.

Is Duke of the female persuasion?

I would have thought the appropriate name would then be Duchess.

[-tip-]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, I think that you are historically inaccurate.
However, the point is that we need to find the way to keep dangerous inanimate objects out of the hands of people who are too stupid, too insane or too criminally oriented to be trusted not to use them in ways that are bound to be murderous.
You seem to be arguing on the side of fighting fire with fire. And your side doesn't seem to be winning--when it comes to preventing any of the stupid, insane or criminally oriented folks from wreaking havoc--or simply accidentally shooting folks.
Face it. There is no way that increasing the prevalence of guns is going to make gun violence (or deaths and accidental shootings) go down.

First, my post is historically accurate.
Second, no law can prevent evil or accidents.

"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
[...sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]

[FKA Reader]

Seriouslady wrote:

<quoted text>
Doesn't matter what kind of background check they require. Criminals will always get guns and will always modify them.
The tragedy of man's inhumanity to man is as old as time and will always occur. There are things you can do to keep yourself and family as safe as possible, but never 100% safe.
And buying a gun that you are not proficient with is a bad idea and will not keep you safe. It may increase the likelihood of you being shot with your own weapon.
Stiffening the punishment for gun related crimes may be a bit of a detterent, but it will not stop the shooters who are mentally ill. They usually take their own lives anyway. And criminals do not think they are ever going to get caught.

You overlook the reality that not every country seems to be as burdened with this particular outcome of man's inhumanity to man as we are.

[-tip-]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
Is Duke of the female persuasion?
I would have thought the appropriate name would then be Duchess.

Of all the posters on Topix, I would have thought you to be the least judgmental concerning names as related to gender.

For Pete's sake, what if she hasn't completed her hormonal "sex change" therapy?
What if she hasn't yet "come out" to her family and friends?

Think before you crush another's spirit.

[FKA Reader]

-tip- wrote:

<quoted text>
And further...what kind of pseudo law expert [writing in your Salon article], makes this brazen statement:
"The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general."
Epic FAIL.

Because nobody is contemplating any changes to the equal protection clauses of the US Constition--which would be required to undertake such targetted attempts at disarmament.

In fact, nobody is even contemplating any changes to the Second Amendment.

The bulk of what has been proposed (except for bans on military assault rifles owned by private citizens) has to do with improved enforcement of existing laws regarding sales and ownership.

[Che Reagan Christ]

-tip- wrote:

<quoted text>
LaPierre?
The work referenced was authored by Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D. from Florida State University, J.D. from Georgetown University. Located in Fairfax, Virginia, he litigates constitutional law issues in the federal courts, including the Supreme Court.

The LaPierre reference is irrelevant. The rest is what is germane.

[Che Reagan Christ]

-tip- wrote:

<quoted text>
And further...what kind of pseudo law expert [writing in your Salon article], makes this brazen statement:
"The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general."
Epic FAIL.

Think about it. That isn't a gun issue. It is a persecution issue. Raise the Hitler argument when a law is introduced that treats Catholics in this country disproportionately in regard to gun ownership.

[-tip-]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
The LaPierre reference is irrelevant. The rest is what is germane.

The rest is wrong.