Immigants. I knew it was them. Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them.
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
Hell no. I copied and pasted the text messagesPlease tell me you made that up.
I don't mean any disrespect, is the person educated?
It's not funny when they're in the classroom next to youThat's even funnier.
Someone with that intelligence is teaching kids.
I'm very against gun ownership but seeing pictures like the one on the previous page of someone shopping with a AR makes me question whether I'd want one as protection from those nutjobs. I think my principles would win but i can see why idiots carry.
Its beyond people's intelligence.
Its almost an indoctrination that guns are good and its always something else at fault.
Other countries have just as high gun ownership (Canada for one I think), it is the fetishisation of gun ownership in the US that is the root of it all.
Its almost an indoctrination that guns are good and its always something else at fault.
Other countries have just as high gun ownership (Canada for one I think), it is the fetishisation of gun ownership in the US that is the root of it all.
Is correct.
Not that it matters but I think CNN just said she is no longer a person of interest.
I can see the NRA response now:
'This action is a direct result of the lack of patriotic Americans doing their god fearing duty of carrying loaded automatic weapons with sniperscopes and night vision goggles.
If the good American C&W concert going people had made the logical informed patriotic choice to always carry a loaded, sniperscoped, nightvision automatic weapon as their patriotic 2nd amendment allows, then as god is our saviour and witness, this deranged UnAmerican liberal would have been stopped.'
'This action is a direct result of the lack of patriotic Americans doing their god fearing duty of carrying loaded automatic weapons with sniperscopes and night vision goggles.
If the good American C&W concert going people had made the logical informed patriotic choice to always carry a loaded, sniperscoped, nightvision automatic weapon as their patriotic 2nd amendment allows, then as god is our saviour and witness, this deranged UnAmerican liberal would have been stopped.'
Surely there's a middle ground between allowing the children to have their toys (a handgun) but banning all automatic and semi-automatic weapons from civilian ownership? Or am I being hopelessly naïve?
Its really debate about power. The NRA view any attempts to restrict gun owner ship beyond the current laws on the books, as an attempt at a slippery slope that will eventually lead to the restriction of guns except for hunting purposes. There's no middle ground for them as they see any sign of capitulation as a potential domino effect of further restrictions.
So bizarre the law over there. You can go and check in to a hotel in Vegas with an Automatic rifle on your shoulder and it's totally fine. You could even take one into the casino and it's not against the law, it only become a problem if the staff ask you to leave and you don't.
Isnt there a weird law about drinking alcohol in public - hence people drinking out of bottles wrapped up in brown paper bags? So hypothetically I believe it is possible for two people to walk into a hotel, one holding an AK47, another holding a bottle of wine, and its the latter one who could get thrown out / arrested.
Sturm Ruger and Smith & Wesson owner American Outdoor Brands rose after the massacre in Las Vegas.
It's never, ever going to change so the debate is pointless.
Americans are too far gone when it comes to guns.
Americans are too far gone when it comes to guns.
I think it's actually ok to have an open container in Vegas, but it's illegal to have one if you are a passenger in the car
all the states and different laws just adds to the confusion.And again, stupid law around guns, it's illegal to have a loaded firearm in the car with you? but you can walk about on the street with one. How do think people transport these guns around?
Those weapons are much more expensive, use up a lot of ammo, and have an enthusiastic fanbase. They represent big money to gun manufacturers. To have that impeded would represent major loss of income for them, and ultimately, loss of funds directed at politicians who vote against gun control. The NRA have done a tremendous job convincing American voters that any restriction on guns equals an attack on them. They've personalized this and made gun owners feel as though they should be a protected class. In that way, there's no desire from gun-owning voters to support politicians in favor of "common sense" gun laws because they see that as voting against their self interests.
Never fails to amaze me how US politicians and it's people can allow gun violence to happen time & time again - and use the constitution, or just plain citizens rights, to justify not controlling access to guns/ammo. It can't be stupidity, can it?
In the unfortunate event that one of these nutjobs happens to go on a shooting spree, I don't think your first instinct would be to pull out your gun and start firing back at them (unless you're trained to do just that of course). Besides, I don't even want to think about the possible casualties when innocent people get caught up in the cross fire!
I honestly think it boils down to fear of the backlash. If the gov't issued a mandatory ban on all guns and started confiscating them, we'd see Waco x1000 all at once.
but a backlash in itself makes no sense. did that happen in Oz, or in the UK when they had their bans?
The one who police are now saying had nothing to do with the shooting?
Unsurprisingly the Dems lead the charge for sensible gun control. They are pissing in the wind though, sadly.
Is that her real twitter account?
There's no blue tick for a confirmed account, and I'd have hoped she knew Las Vegas was in Nevada rather than California?
Edit ok, that's a FB post screen captured. Still... worrying lack of geography
It's Kyle Griffin who is quoting her, and she is talking about the off duty Californian officers and fire fighters that were injured in the shooting.
After Hungerford there would have been no support for any opposition to gun control.
You’re most probably right. It’s astonishing that heinous tragedies of gigantic proportions infinitely reported via social and traditional media does not change the hearts and minds of pro gun owning people.
It would take a draconian implementation of a new anti ownership law over 2 or 3 generations to change the culture. It’s highly unlikely any political group would ever have enough power for long enough to achieve that.
The only scenario I can think of is after gigantic civil war when so many died as part of the healing process required afterwards. But that’s after an event as seismic as the end of apartied or 2nd world war: ie: not happening soon.
Last edited:
Those of you who support the right to bear arms in the US, where do you draw the line as to what constitutes an arm?
Should citizens be allowed to own tanks, fighter jets or to attempt to develop nuclear weapons in their garden sheds? Why does the right to bear arms stretch to semi-automatic weaponry but not to those more advanced hardwares?
If the right to bear arms stems from the need for a well regulated militia to ensure the security of a free state, why is there any limit as to what the people can keep and carry at all? It's not as though machine guns will be of much use should the people ever actually need to rise up against the US government and their military capabilities.
If there are going to be limits imposed anyway, could we not just give everyone who wants one a nice big stick and say they're armed? Maybe the odd musket here and there?
Should citizens be allowed to own tanks, fighter jets or to attempt to develop nuclear weapons in their garden sheds? Why does the right to bear arms stretch to semi-automatic weaponry but not to those more advanced hardwares?
If the right to bear arms stems from the need for a well regulated militia to ensure the security of a free state, why is there any limit as to what the people can keep and carry at all? It's not as though machine guns will be of much use should the people ever actually need to rise up against the US government and their military capabilities.
If there are going to be limits imposed anyway, could we not just give everyone who wants one a nice big stick and say they're armed? Maybe the odd musket here and there?
This NRA group are difficult to understand. Encouraging people to possess deadly weapons and keeping dangerous people armed! WTF!?! Makes no sense whatsoever. I can't see how any American with sense would support that.
Imagine being stupid enough to think giving everyone a gun makes you safer.
Imagine being stupid enough to think giving everyone a gun makes you safer.
Erm. Money. Profit. Business. Makes total sense "why" they are doing it. Just us Americans are stupid enough to fall for their bullshit.
I don't recall any. Just wondering.
My memory is hazy and I couldn't recall the sequence; Hungerford or Dunblane.
From my recollection people were asking how he got hold of Semi Automatic weapons. Most people didn't realise that they were legal.
Must be a very surreal experience trying to come to terms with what's just happened.