Thanks to a certain nutcase in Colorado, I fully expect to hear a full media outcry from the leftist gun control crowd, particularly from the Obama himself.
Anyone think gun control laws would have made any difference at all? While I agree it's a bit questionable for one man to have an assault weapon(are citizens planning to fight a war?) and the purchase of 6000 rounds of ammunition should have raised some eyebrows, I'm not so sure it would have changed anything. For one, if I were in the gunman's position and I were deprived of a firearm, I would resort to burning the building down. And given that they found chemicals and explosives in the guy's booby trapped apartment, I'd say that's a very distinct possibility. I'm no shrink, but it seems like the only reason he used firearms at all was because he wanted to personally kill all those people.
I'm sure the Obama and everyone watching the television will conveniently forget those facts.
If you ask me, I personally think it might have turned out better if someone else in that theater had guns of their own so they can give the guy some bullets of his own.
- BUSSE NMFSH / FBM
- Hinderer XM 18 3.5 Custom and Production Spanto
There will always be a cry for control, and there will always be those who cry for freedom.
The paradigms are not similar, they are not interchangeable.
Love of freedom must trump love of safety.
The point that I get caught on, is that people will gamble on being safer instead of taking personal responsibility and protecting themselves.
The main differences I see between 'liberals' and 'conservatives' from my own personal experiences with people is that in general 'conservatives' are in favor of personal responsibility and 'liberals' are in favor of group responsibility.
The thing, again from what I've seen, is that our lives are built on personal decisions, not group decisions.
Jaytaylor, it's unfortunate that words like liberal and conservative get thrown around without a set definition... all of us being individuals.
I think we can agree that here in the U.S.A. it is the leftist crowd and not the rightist crowd that seeks more gun control. To be accurate, those who want personal responsibility aren't in favor of it, while those who want security through government, are willing to abandon their freedoms and the freedoms of others to achieve some small measure of safety that is not guaranteed. There is no right to safety, there is a right to own and bear arms and they can't be traded.
How many mass shooting have occurred at shooting ranges, gun stores, police departments, or other places it is known the people in attendance will be armed?
Anyone else find it odd this happened shortly before Hillary is set to sign the UN Arms Control Treaty? I can't help but be suspicious of an Operation Northwoods type scenario.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Surprisingly, most comments from mayor news outlets about this deplorable incident do not call for more gun laws. There are blogs and a couple of editorials criticizing the NRA, but most comments no not call for more regulations and state that this incident is unlikely to change public opinion on the subject. Now is known that the shooter legally acquired all of his guns (including an AR15), ammo, and clips (he used a 100 rounds drum). I can only guess that if any attempt at gun laws come out if this, I guess it would be directed at re-establishing the AR15 ban and setting a ban on large capacity clips, and neither attempt is really new.
Hi cap mags will be under fire
Then it will it will die down....
Colorado shooting unlikely to spur changes in gun laws
Most Americans, however, do not believe that tougher gun laws would be the solution. Gallup polls over the last two decades show the percentage of Americans who favor making gun control laws "more strict" fell from 78 percent in 1990 to 44 percent in 2010.
Why the Aurora shootings won't likely change the gun control debate
Posting emotionally is as bad as posting drunk. Think first, post later.
The gun treaty ban is all fear mongering by the NRA and the Alex Jones's of the world..imho
Nothing will change for gun owners in The US
http://www.state.gov/t/isn/armstradetreaty/KEY U.S. REDLINES
The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.
The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.
There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.
There will be no lowering of current international standards.
Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.
The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.
There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.
I wouldn't call it fear mongering, though. I would call it politicking. The NRA has a problem this time around: there is no comparable anti-gun force on the left to match the pro-gun organizations on the right. Money, publicity, organizational depth and history. The Democrats just aren't interested in this fight this election cycle, and that lack of interest matches that of the country at large.
So the NRA is left without an issue, right?
Last edited by DrOpPoInT1110; 07-21-2012 at 02:21 PM.
"If you're going through hell, keep going." -Winston Churchill
I realize we're on a knife forum, but I'm not sure why you would jump to the conclusion that he would resort to bladed weapons when the police found his apartment booby-trapped with explosives. Between the two, I would think blowing up the theater would be the next likely option if he didn't have access to firearms.
Wasn't arson fairly rampant in the 2011 England riots? I'd imagine a lot of Molotov cocktails were flying about.
No, I believe anything I said would only point to a generalization that leftists in the US are mostly anti-gun.And you assume that anyone with an opinion differing from yours is a lefty??
That's nice? I'm not sure liberal in the UK means the same as liberal in the US.I'm far from liberal.
Funnily enough, I'm still a bit perplexed as to why anyone needs an assault weapon if they're not SWAT or military. If I felt I might need to defend myself against the local gangs, I would move out ASAP.
I believe the only thing I stated that was speculation thus far would be whether or not Obama jumps all over this with an anti-gun flag.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...ontrol-debate/No news is no news. Your expectations are not a topic for conversation unless you can give us better than this. A couple of sources have mentioned that Obama has actually reversed some gun bans.
Give it time. As I said, once the shock and time for mourning is over, blame will come around and go around. And no true politician worthy of the name will let this opportunity go unexploited. Both Obama and Mitt Romney will have political points to gain by making use of this tragedy.
I find it interesting that Obama would ever tighten the rope over gun control given his suspected involvement in Fast & Furious. But nevertheless, I see the guy as exceptionally opportunistic, and there would be no better opportunity to appeal to his voter base before November.
Hmm, and here I thought it would be okay so long as I don't make several such threads a day. Not pointing fingers or anything.Posting emotionally is as bad as posting drunk. Think first, post later.
The rising gun crime the UK has more to do with increased drug gang activity and an influx of very unpleasant people from Eastern Europe. Gun ownership is not a factor.
The real argument for gun ownership in the USA is the second amendment. It was put there for a reason. Names like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Gaddafi and Assad are that reason.
Gun ownership in the US is a right enshrined in the constitution like free speech and the freedom to practice your religion. What more needs to be said.
What more can be said about a country where you can no longer mail order a BAR... folks giving up freedoms is becoming more the norm here, and the government will restrict what it can when it can.
Despite the apparent pro-gun direction of my thread, I'm still wondering if the right to own assault weapons is one worth defending to the death. I'd be perfectly satisfied with a shotgun, given its apparent advantages for people who aren't sharpshooters. Granted, I personally don't feel it would be wrong for some rich guy to own a rocket launcher and fire it off for giggles in his giant underground complex, yet I doubt society would see it that way due to the potential risks if the rich guy with no criminal history has a really bad day and suddenly snaps.
I believe an extreme in either direction(gun or anti-gun) isn't a healthy one, and that freedom should inevitably step aside for, oh dear, common sense.
The only things I ever see about gun control are more stringent checks in place on gun sales so, for instance, people can't buy guns at gun shows without a background check, and limiting people from buying things like shoulder-fired missiles, high capacity magazines, fully automatic weapons, hand grenades, and other items that civilians really have no use for.
The government already warrantlessly confiscates cell phone data and people's internet browsing information. I don't see anyone up in arms about that kind of government activity.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)