Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumGuns don't kill people. Gun nuts kill people.
In fairness, Aurora shooter James Holmes seems like he was just an ordinary nut, who, thanks to the lack of adequate gun laws, was able to quickly and easily amass a lethal arsenal and kill 12 people. But the two mass shooters making the news since Aurora were genuine gun nuts.
First there is gun nut Wade Page, who had his NRA talking points down cold:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-08-06/sikh-temple-shooting-gunman-neo-Nazi-musician/56833006/1
And then we have gun nut and teabagger Thomas Caffall, whose "inspirational people" include Kalashnikov, Garand, Colt, Browning, and, of course, Glenn Beck.
http://twitter.com/CSGV/status/235202010494947329/photo/1/large
bongbong
(5,436 posts)The gun-religionists are the willing dupes of the gun industry. Their natural fear of life and reality has been honed to a gleaming edge, and they become SO scared that they won't leave the house without weaponry.
Meanwhile, "wimpy Liberals" continue to walk around without the need for a gun.
armueller2001
(609 posts)Apparently you're a mind reader.
I have a smoke detector and fire extinguisher in my house, ready to go in case of emergency. I must be SO scared of a fire.
Sounds like you need to lay off the "bongbong."
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> r they prefer to be prepared.
Or they can be like "wimpy Liberals" and not be so scared of everything.
You need to stop reading the "NRA Talking Points Manual" 24x7.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Guess who benefited the most from fire-regulations?
That's right; smoke detector and fire-extinguisher companies.
Big-fire prevention is trampling over the constitution just so big manly men can proudly display their smoke detectors (sometimes even 6 or more per household!) whereas supposedly "wimpy" men do without.
How often have you personally needed a smoke detector? I will go ahead and answer for everyone with my own personal anecdote and assume it to be universally true: never. I have never needed one.
Why should we then be enthralled to big-FP just to line their pockets with a culture of fear that they are probably helping to propagate.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)what would they go nuts for?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Shakespeare and Thomas Paine.
There is not evidence Holmes owned any guns before he bought those ones. If he were a true gun enthusiast, he would have known the mall ninja magazine would jam within a few rounds.
One can find people inspiring for reasons other than there alleged politics. Beck is a living example of Andy Griffith's character in "Face in the Crowd". He is an example of how just having the right shtick and you too can be rich and famous.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Anything else these guys had in common? Every common belief and attitude they held must obviously be condemned!
Let's hope they didn't both approve of free speech, or the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, or any other similar "talking points."
*bites nails nervously*
Loudly
(2,436 posts)is to do exactly what this guy did.
Defend himself against law enforcement.
Without that excuse, there's nothing to hang so-called "gun rights" on.
The truth of any such "right" becomes obvious.
It is merely an indulgence. And society has indulged guns for too long.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)This man was a psycho who snapped and attacked people. How is that fighting tyranny? He's a murderer who used a firearm, simple as that. The rest of your post is just nonsense.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Loudly
(2,436 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)that have to do with the 2nd Amendment?
Loudly
(2,436 posts)With "personal protection" hung onto that like an ornamental excuse.
There can be no "right" of access to a convenient means of killing.
It is merely a national indulgence propped up by depraved rhetoric.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)There is no need for any kind of "claimed Constitutional justification" for the 2nd Amendment.
Read it and read again and if you need to, read it a third time THEN get back to me when you've found the part where the 2nd Amendment CONFERS a right of any kind.
If it isn't obvious to you that the right to own firearms existed BEFORE the 2nd Amendment was authored then I can't help you. Since it existed BEFORE, there need not be a reason for it to be justified at ALL.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)mind-boggling.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Real gun nuts appreciate their second ammendment rights.
Only dumbasses and just plain nuts would vicitimize guns and the 2A.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,382 posts)Metal Rights Now!
armueller2001
(609 posts)is responsible for enabling the James Holmes incident.
What gun laws would you suggest that would have prevented it?
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)They come in, scream, holler, cry, make oh so many accusations(none of which can they prove) then run away. Waiting for their next chance to drive by and "post".
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
armueller2001
(609 posts)Thanks for your intelligent debate. You are a master of copy + paste.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,382 posts)And Sarah Palin, S.E. Cupp, Michele Bachmann, and the Facebook page "I will NOT vote for Obama in 2012". Just a note for the NRA admirers we have temporarily on DU.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)that means poetry lovers are evil too.