Barry Cofield is LEGIT... no more nonsense about we need a "real" NT... HE IS THE REAL DEAL!!!! He goes to the Pro Bowl this year, book it!!!
I'm assuming this thread has also turned into the debate about Obama's gun control initiative?
Anyway, I'm thinking that O fully expects the AWB portion of this legislation to eventually get removed so that the R's feel as though they have "won" something. I'm definitely fine with fixing the background check loopholes and the anti-trafficking portions of this proposal though.
I read over the 23 executive actions Obama made and not one of them would have stopped the shootings in CT. Actually a lot of them sound like fluff pieces.
Last edited by AsburySkinsFan; January-16th-2013 at 11:57 AM.
Here's an interesting video I came across.
It is a look at the 2nd Amendment as a whole and the history of gun control.
....not sure why it isn't embedding the video even with the tags.
Last edited by AsburySkinsFan; January-16th-2013 at 02:56 PM.
I am still not sure about the potential ban on high capacity mags. If I have one, am I supposed to destroy it, turn it in the cops, or I just wont be allowed to buy any if Congress passes the law? As will it be illegal to buy or illegal to own (same goes with "assault" weapons)? During the assault weapon ban, it only made it illegal to buy assault weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment, not illegal to own ones that were grandfathered in. If the ban would not have expired in 2004, it was unlikely that his mother would have the bushmaster, but she still would have had the pistols. Instead of the bushmaster, she could have had a shotgun that he could have stolen. Either way he would have still killed the kids, but if got mental therapy this possibly never could have happened. The gun isn't the problem, it is the person that is pulling the trigger.
I feel like what Obama is pushing is a feel good law. He is using this executive power but it doesn't actually address what he signed today and how it would have stopped Lanza from his shooting spree. Criminals will always find the weapons they want. I believe that a weapons ban would work just as good as our war on drugs. We can have a ban on anything we want but as long as there is somebody that wants something there will be someone willing to sell it to them. If they don't want to use an assault weapon, they can use any other weapon (shotgun, pistol, cross bow, fertilizer, pencil, car, hammer, C4, gasoline, etc, ) that isn't banned.
I am not sure where assault rifles show up in the FBI data base for murder, but there were 323 murders from "rifles" and almost 9,900 deaths from drunk drivers in the US. There were more murders by shotguns than "rifles" in 2011. I don't hear a big outcry to ban alcohol, but there is a big outcry to ban assault rifles. Obviously one murder from any weapon is one too many. I am all for reducing murders, but passing legislation that won't work gives a false sense of security.
A young spring-tender girl
combed her joyous hair
'You are very ugly' said the mirror.
on her lips hung
a smile of dove-secret loveliness,
for only that morning had not
the blind boy said,
'You are beautiful'?
I think somebody earlier in the thread posted total gun deaths (including accidents and suicides) and total car deaths, and the numbers were pretty close.
We're all here because
we're not all there
---------- Post added January-16th-2013 at 11:49 PM ----------
Last edited by twa; January-16th-2013 at 11:00 PM.
“These are the ideas that people come to America to get away from.”Rubio
How should society view a cure for a ailment of limited duration that takes another's life to 'cure'?
It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion. ...Dean Inge
Lanza could have access to a weapon with the same relevant functionality with or without the ban. Maybe his mother would not have purchased one if it did not look like a military issue one...but the functionality would be the same.
I agree with your point about a false sense of security. All of the "Team Ban" folks think they are accomplishing something but they really aren't. And if you point that out they get righteous with the "gun nut" talk.
With respect to the Executive Orders that came out yesterday(I think). They don't look all that controversial to me. I like the "Appoint a Director of the ATF" order. Could that be filed under "note to self"? Or did it require an executive order? But seriously...the incentive to hire more school resource officers...does that mean placing armed 'security"/police officers in schools? That is what the school resource officer was when I was in school....a county police officer that was assigned to and worked in the school. I am just not sure if that is the standard definition of one or was unique to my locality.
Just because you may not like it, does not mean I / we are not entitled to that right.
The knowledge of bloodshed is what keeps government in line in an underlying way, not insane Rambo heroics fantasized by random people who would be taking down the world's most advanced military.
Lehigh Valley, Pa Skins Fan!.GO SKINS!
Now... would I rather be shot in the head with a .22 or a .45? Tough call, and there is more stuff for a .22 round to bounce off of inside the head (like... the skull), but I'd take my chances with a .22 because there is a less chance that half of my brain would be on the wall next to my body.
But in the leg it's the .45 all day long.
EDIT: And as mentioned somewhere in here before, the reason that the military went to less lethal rounds is that it took more people out of the fight (ideally). You shoot someone with a .45 (1911 or Thompson in WW2) or 30-06 (M1 Garand or 1903 or .30 cal water cooled machine gun in WW2) they are dead more often than not.
You shoot someone with 5.56 and 9mm in Vietnam through the present, you are IDEALLY taking an injured enemy and another enemy to aide that injured Soldier out of the fight. So it's 2 for 1 versus just icing one dude.
Now, that doesn't necissarily workout math-wise (which is why I say "Ideally") in an Asymetric Conflict, but that was the whole idea behind it.
EDIT 2: And just to give you one more example, I've seen (with my own eyes) a guy get shot in the right lower leg with a .22 and it came out of his hip and he died from internal bleeding a few days later. I've seen guys shot in the mouth with a 7.62 and they were returned to duty within 5 days with some dental work and a swollen tongue. You pick your poison. Obviously, you would love to avoid getting shot all together
Last edited by DC9; January-17th-2013 at 08:22 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)