US school shooting revives gun debate

Dec 14, 2012 Full story: Yahoo! 2,340

Relatives of those killed in past mass shootings reacted with outrage to Friday's news of another massacre at an elementary school in Connecticut.

Full Story
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#1762 Jan 28, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument is you “Never saw the need for a weapon to shoot more than 7 to 10 rounds at a time,”? Not a very compelling argument.
“Active military and police etc. excluded.” Why would you allow military and police, ect, more rights than that of American citizens? What is your reasoning behind that?
My .308 holds five.

That's plenty for me.

I do have 2 clips though.

If I'm hunting, I don't even use a clip (5 rounds) the whole weekend.

Why do you need 20 or 30 rounds?

We call those guy's vegetarians.

"More rights than that of American citizens"?

Because those are the people who constantly have a target on their back.

Ambushes and fiered upon at multiple locations.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#1763 Jan 28, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Try convincing the Korean shop owners that used AK 47s and Ar 15s to defend their businesses against looters,arsonists and muggers during the LA Riots of '92 that 7 to 10 rounds before reloading is all that is necessary to prevent the barbarians from breaching the gates
Why wouldn't be?

Buy more clips, only takes a second to insert one.

A story that has been forgotten since then is that of the brave storeowners in Koreatown who fended off mobs with handguns, rifles and assault weapons.

On the second day of the riots, the police had abandoned much of Koreatown. Jay Rhee, a storeowner in the area, stated to The Los Angeles Times,“we have lost faith in the police.”

With the cops nowhere to be found, hundreds of people marauded through the streets towards Koreatown. The neighborhood suffered 45 percent of all the property damage and five fatalities of storeowners during the riots. Having had enough of waiting for police, Korean storeowners assembled into militias to protect themselves, their families, and businesses.

Having had enough of waiting for police, Korean storeowners assembled into militias to protect themselves, their families, and businesses.

Rhee claimed that the storeowners shot off 500 rounds into the sky and ground in order to break up the masses of people. The only weapons able to clear that much ammo in a very short time are assault weapons. Single shot pistols or rifles might not have been able to deter the crowd hell-bent on destroying the neighborhood.

Up in the AIR or GROUND?

I would say they wasted 500 rounds when a couple of shotgun blast would have done the trick.

Those are exactly the people who shouldn't be around any sort of weapon.

They're stupid.
just another guy

Denver, CO

#1764 Jan 28, 2013
Rico from East Los II wrote:
<quoted text>
Even West Point Naval Academy agrees!!!
West Point Military Study Warns Of ‘America’s Violent Far-Right’
http://www.mediaite.com/online/west-point-mil...
How can you question it if the West Point Naval Academy says it?
Dude you are a dipshit.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1765 Jan 28, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
My .308 holds five.
That's plenty for me.
I do have 2 clips though.
If I'm hunting, I don't even use a clip (5 rounds) the whole weekend.
Why do you need 20 or 30 rounds?
We call those guy's vegetarians.
"More rights than that of American citizens"?
Because those are the people who constantly have a target on their back.
Ambushes and fiered upon at multiple locations.
“My .308 holds five.

That's plenty for me.

I do have 2 clips though.

If I'm hunting, I don't even use a clip (5 rounds) the whole weekend.” Because you have that opinion it’s okay to disregard the rights of Americans?

“Why do you need 20 or 30 rounds?” Because it is my right afforded to me by the Bill of Rights.

“We call those guy's vegetarians.” Again, insults aren’t an argument… It’s childish.

“"More rights than that of American citizens"?

Because those are the people who constantly have a target on their back.

Ambushes and fiered upon at multiple locations.” Again because of your opinion, Americans are afforded less rights? How can a private citizen protect themselves from “a target on their back.”?
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#1766 Jan 28, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“If that car consistently took out 7 to 10 people or more at a time?” Car accidents claim 43000 people’s live a year and firearms in 2011 12,664… How do you rationalize your conclusion that guns are worse than cars?
“We don't need 100,000 lb. cars that go 200 mph?” You’re asking me or are you making a statement?
Making a statement.

I didn't make any conclusion that firearms are worse than cars, you did that.

Rapid fire, high capacity,(clips) high caliber, military type weapons are only used for one thing, killing someone.

Are you going to war?

Then a civilian doesn't need one.

Again, are you a vegetarian?

Better stock up on rabbit food.

Since: Aug 10

Cathouse Mouse

#1767 Jan 28, 2013
Philosophical moment;

What would John Lennon want us to do?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1768 Jan 28, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Making a statement.
I didn't make any conclusion that firearms are worse than cars, you did that.
Rapid fire, high capacity,(clips) high caliber, military type weapons are only used for one thing, killing someone.
Are you going to war?
Then a civilian doesn't need one.
Again, are you a vegetarian?
Better stock up on rabbit food.
“Making a statement.

I didn't make any conclusion that firearms are worse than cars, you did that.”
You’re willing to remove American’s Constructional right to fire arms and allow people to continue driving… So yes, you have made that conclusion.
“Rapid fire, high capacity,(clips) high caliber, military type weapons are only used for one thing, killing someone.”
It is but it’s the Second Amendment and Americans have the right to own and bare them.

“Are you going to war?” No, but it’s the Second Amendment and Americans have the right to own and bare them.

“Then a civilian doesn't need one.” You opinion doesn’t change the Second Amendment and Americans have the right to own and bare them.

“Again, are you a vegetarian?

Better stock up on rabbit food.” It doesn’t matter if I am or not, it’s the Second Amendment and Americans have the right to own and bare them

Since: Aug 10

Cathouse Mouse

#1769 Jan 28, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Making a statement.
I didn't make any conclusion that firearms are worse than cars, you did that.”
You’re willing to remove American’s Constructional right to fire arms and allow people to continue driving… So yes, you have made that conclusion.
“Rapid fire, high capacity,(clips) high caliber, military type weapons are only used for one thing, killing someone.”
It is but it’s the Second Amendment and Americans have the right to own and bare them.
“Are you going to war?” No, but it’s the Second Amendment and Americans have the right to own and bare them.
“Then a civilian doesn't need one.” You opinion doesn’t change the Second Amendment and Americans have the right to own and bare them.
“Again, are you a vegetarian?
Better stock up on rabbit food.” It doesn’t matter if I am or not, it’s the Second Amendment and Americans have the right to own and bare them
First ..... slap youself across the face. Just to make sure you're paying attention.

Now, nobody is attempting to take away your second amendment.

and

The second amendment does NOT give you absolute rights to own any weapon or ammo you desire.

Denying that is denying the laws on banned guns and ammo already in place and that makes you appear idiotically stubborn to accept facts as they are.

Wouldn't you agree?

You know what?... slap yourself again for being so stupid to begin with.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#1770 Jan 28, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Making a statement.
I didn't make any conclusion that firearms are worse than cars, you did that.”
You’re willing to remove American’s Constructional right to fire arms and allow people to continue driving… So yes, you have made that conclusion.
“Rapid fire, high capacity,(clips) high caliber, military type weapons are only used for one thing, killing someone.”
It is but it’s the Second Amendment and Americans have the right to own and bare them.
“Are you going to war?” No, but it’s the Second Amendment and Americans have the right to own and bare them.
“Then a civilian doesn't need one.” You opinion doesn’t change the Second Amendment and Americans have the right to own and bare them.
“Again, are you a vegetarian?
Better stock up on rabbit food.” It doesn’t matter if I am or not, it’s the Second Amendment and Americans have the right to own and bare them
"You’re willing to remove American’s Constructional right to fire arms and allow people to continue driving… So yes, you have made that conclusion".

Remove the 2nd amendment?

Post where I stated that?

"it’s the Second Amendment and Americans have the right to own and bare them".

Correct.

I do.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1771 Jan 28, 2013
Cathouse Mouse wrote:
<quoted text>
First ..... slap youself across the face. Just to make sure you're paying attention.
Now, nobody is attempting to take away your second amendment.
and
The second amendment does NOT give you absolute rights to own any weapon or ammo you desire.
Denying that is denying the laws on banned guns and ammo already in place and that makes you appear idiotically stubborn to accept facts as they are.
Wouldn't you agree?
You know what?... slap yourself again for being so stupid to begin with.
The Second Amendment is a FUDEMENTAL right of every individual American.

Banned weapons were used in the Columbine shootings… Are you going to spew that gun bans save lives? Bans only affect the law-abiding citizen.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1772 Jan 28, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
"You’re willing to remove American’s Constructional right to fire arms and allow people to continue driving… So yes, you have made that conclusion".
Remove the 2nd amendment?
Post where I stated that?
"it’s the Second Amendment and Americans have the right to own and bare them".
Correct.
I do.
“Remove the 2nd amendment?

Post where I stated that?” You stated you want assault weapons and high capacity magazines banned, which goes against the Second Amendment. Then you stated you would exempt military and police which allows them the right but not the private citizen… Which you said was ok because they were the only ones with a target on their backs… If that is true then why are only 173 the 12,000 people killed by a gun in 2011 police officers? Or is there less killed because they DO carry firearms? Regardless you argument isn’t rational.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#1773 Jan 28, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Remove the 2nd amendment?
Post where I stated that?” You stated you want assault weapons and high capacity magazines banned, which goes against the Second Amendment. Then you stated you would exempt military and police which allows them the right but not the private citizen… Which you said was ok because they were the only ones with a target on their backs… If that is true then why are only 173 the 12,000 people killed by a gun in 2011 police officers? Or is there less killed because they DO carry firearms? Regardless you argument isn’t rational.
"You stated you want assault weapons and high capacity magazines banned, which goes against the Second Amendment".

They weren't around in 1791.

So, it doesn't infringe.

"Which you said was ok because they were the only ones with a target on their backs… If that is true then why are only 173 the 12,000 people killed by a gun in 2011 police officers? Or is there less killed because they DO carry firearms"?

Isn't relevant.

The only one's talking about a gun ban are teabaggers.

The rest are talking aboult a type or style.

Which still doesn't infringe.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#1774 Jan 28, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Second Amendment is a FUDEMENTAL right of every individual American.
Banned weapons were used in the Columbine shootings… Are you going to spew that gun bans save lives? Bans only affect the law-abiding citizen.
In April 1986, after months of efforts, the NRA had finally rallied enough support in the Democratic-controlled House to force a bill onto the floor. The so-called Firearms Owners' Protection Act would undo many of the provisions in the 1968 Gun Control Act, passed shortly after Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were shot dead.

But just as the bill was about to come to a final vote in that tumultuous House session, New Jersey Democrat William Hughes introduced an amendment. It would forbid the sale to civilians of all machine guns made after the law took effect.

"One can view the Congress' action in 1986 to ban civilian possession of fully automatic weapons as something of a kind of a precedent that would open the door for restricting civilian access to semiautomatic, assault-style weapons," Spitzer says.

Spitzer says a major reason the machine gun ban met so little resistance was a 1934 law passed a month after outlaws Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow were killed in a hail of machine gun bullets. It required machine gun owners to pay a hefty tax, be fingerprinted and be listed on a national registry.

As a result, he says, sales of machine guns plummeted.

"It is a good example of something that is little known, which is a gun control law that was pretty effective in keeping such weapons out of civilian hands," he says. "So by 1986, when the provision was added to the Firearm Owners' Protection Act to bar any newly produced fully automatic weapon from possession by civilians.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1775 Jan 28, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
"You stated you want assault weapons and high capacity magazines banned, which goes against the Second Amendment".
They weren't around in 1791.
So, it doesn't infringe.
"Which you said was ok because they were the only ones with a target on their backs… If that is true then why are only 173 the 12,000 people killed by a gun in 2011 police officers? Or is there less killed because they DO carry firearms"?
Isn't relevant.
The only one's talking about a gun ban are teabaggers.
The rest are talking aboult a type or style.
Which still doesn't infringe.
“They weren't around in 1791.

So, it doesn't infringe.” It does… Do you truly believe the founders only meant “muskets”? That’s why they stated “ARMS”.

“Isn't relevant.

The only one's talking about a gun ban are teabaggers.

The rest are talking aboult a type or style.

Which still doesn't infringe.” http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index....

Yes it does infringe on the law abiding citizen… A ban on any type or style is a ban.

Columbine happened! Tell us how the ban would have stopped them?
Now that the real point.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1776 Jan 28, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
In April 1986, after months of efforts, the NRA had finally rallied enough support in the Democratic-controlled House to force a bill onto the floor. The so-called Firearms Owners' Protection Act would undo many of the provisions in the 1968 Gun Control Act, passed shortly after Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were shot dead.
But just as the bill was about to come to a final vote in that tumultuous House session, New Jersey Democrat William Hughes introduced an amendment. It would forbid the sale to civilians of all machine guns made after the law took effect.
"One can view the Congress' action in 1986 to ban civilian possession of fully automatic weapons as something of a kind of a precedent that would open the door for restricting civilian access to semiautomatic, assault-style weapons," Spitzer says.
Spitzer says a major reason the machine gun ban met so little resistance was a 1934 law passed a month after outlaws Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow were killed in a hail of machine gun bullets. It required machine gun owners to pay a hefty tax, be fingerprinted and be listed on a national registry.
As a result, he says, sales of machine guns plummeted.
"It is a good example of something that is little known, which is a gun control law that was pretty effective in keeping such weapons out of civilian hands," he says. "So by 1986, when the provision was added to the Firearm Owners' Protection Act to bar any newly produced fully automatic weapon from possession by civilians.
Columbine happened... Tell us HOW the bann stopped them!

Since: Aug 10

Cathouse Mouse

#1777 Jan 28, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Second Amendment is a FUDEMENTAL right of every individual American.
Banned weapons were used in the Columbine shootings… Are you going to spew that gun bans save lives? Bans only affect the law-abiding citizen.
"Fundamental" is not absolute. The definition of "fundamental" is "origin of primary source".

A "fundamental right" is the basis for the laws to follow in regulating certain rights afforded by the Constitution from overbaering other "fundamental rights" afforded others by the same Constitution.

Nothing about the U.S. Constitution is deemed to be absolute. It is merely the primary source forwhich this country was intended to be governed,... and you are bucking that system.

If in fact "banned guns" were used at Columbine then it should only go to prove that we are WAY late in getting started with more serious attitudes to get this problem under control.

As for that lame over-used term "law abiding citizen", I'd just say that "law abiding citizens" will adhere to any and all newly legislated regulations concerning guns or surrender that title "law abiding citizen".

“Pffffffffffft!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 11

Whatever

#1778 Jan 28, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Second Amendment is a FUDEMENTAL right of every individual American.
Banned weapons were used in the Columbine shootings… Are you going to spew that gun bans save lives? Bans only affect the law-abiding citizen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch...

I agree. Plus they make the shooter very famous. I say we report shootings with headlines like "Some dumb ass shot up another public place* or "Lame coward shoots up a crowd" Never show his face, never report his name.

:)
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#1779 Jan 28, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“They weren't around in 1791.
So, it doesn't infringe.” It does… Do you truly believe the founders only meant “muskets”? That’s why they stated “ARMS”.
“Isn't relevant.
The only one's talking about a gun ban are teabaggers.
The rest are talking aboult a type or style.
Which still doesn't infringe.” http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index....
Yes it does infringe on the law abiding citizen… A ban on any type or style is a ban.
Columbine happened! Tell us how the ban would have stopped them?
Now that the real point.
"It does… Do you truly believe the founders only meant “muskets”? That’s why they stated “ARMS”.

No they didn't they also had rifles and some even had cannons.

" http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index....
Yes it does infringe on the law abiding citizen… A ban on any type or style is a ban".

She was stating some semi-automatics that have a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds.

Just because they ban those, doesn't mean they're going to take my .308, 2 shotguns and 2 pistols.

So no, it's NOT a ban or infringement.

I still have weapons!

"Columbine happened! Tell us how the ban would have stopped them?
Now that the real point".

No,it's the teabaggers point.

Incidence will still happen, you can't stop them but to prevent 40 people people from being killed in less time than it takes to watch the latest NRA commercial, it will be effective in the number of people killed and wounded.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#1780 Jan 28, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Columbine happened... Tell us HOW the bann stopped them!
It didn't.

Who is saying it should have?

Teabaggers.

All it can do, is lessen the damage.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1781 Jan 28, 2013
Cathouse Mouse wrote:
<quoted text>
"Fundamental" is not absolute. The definition of "fundamental" is "origin of primary source".
A "fundamental right" is the basis for the laws to follow in regulating certain rights afforded by the Constitution from overbaering other "fundamental rights" afforded others by the same Constitution.
Nothing about the U.S. Constitution is deemed to be absolute. It is merely the primary source forwhich this country was intended to be governed,... and you are bucking that system.
If in fact "banned guns" were used at Columbine then it should only go to prove that we are WAY late in getting started with more serious attitudes to get this problem under control.
As for that lame over-used term "law abiding citizen", I'd just say that "law abiding citizens" will adhere to any and all newly legislated regulations concerning guns or surrender that title "law abiding citizen".
“"Fundamental" is not absolute. The definition of "fundamental" is "origin of primary source".

A "fundamental right" is the basis for the laws to follow in regulating certain rights afforded by the Constitution from overbaering other "fundamental rights" afforded others by the same Constitution.” Yet the Second Amendment is, and laws against it are UN-Constitutional.

“Nothing about the U.S. Constitution is deemed to be absolute. It is merely the primary source forwhich this country was intended to be governed,... and you are bucking that system.” No. I stand with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That is our system.

“If in fact "banned guns" were used at Columbine then it should only go to prove that we are WAY late in getting started with more serious attitudes to get this problem under control.” That’s the weakest argument I have ever heard. It’s against the law to break into a home, yet bad guys do it regardless, just like bad guys get a banned gun.

“As for that lame over-used term "law abiding citizen", I'd just say that "law abiding citizens" will adhere to any and all newly legislated regulations concerning guns or surrender that title "law abiding citizen".” Thereby allowing bad guys to acquire illegal fire arms… Going back to my point, making laws against the Second Amendment is Un-Constitutional.

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.

Denver Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 18 min lides 3,282
last post wins! (Feb '11) 7 hr Concerned_American 24,650
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 15 hr Respect71 12,516
COMFORT DENTAL ....How Many of you feel Ripped ... (Apr '08) Sun Mary 79
Nude photos of 12-year-old girl circulated via ... (Feb '10) Sep 13 seema 304
What would happen if the United States ever dec... (Oct '10) Sep 13 boots 150
Another black kid shot by police that was unarmed Sep 12 twalsh801 3
•••
•••
Denver Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Denver Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••
•••

Denver People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Denver News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Denver
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••