Liberals here want to blame conservatives for Ariz shooting?

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by fishpoopoo

OOPS! Almost did not notice the gun.

[Chesapeake Bill]

Jim,

Easy, yes. Logical, maybe not. I applaud your intent and agree that we need to change. However, the agreement goes beyond a labor contract. By that I mean the agreement pertains to a longer timeframe (typicaly twenty years or so for Fire and Police since I can't speak about teachers). I would be interested to see some concrete examples of how the industry did this years ago (I confess that I am not familiar with how they calculated that). As you can see I'm not ashamed to admit that I do not have knowledge of certain aspects--much like I am sure you have no knowledge of certain aspects of the agreements made regarding longevity in the pension plans. Together, we can learn and find equitable solutions. These are tough decisions and the individuals that are in those positions are putting their lives on the line in return for the agreement. It may not be easy to get the same caliber of person to fill those positions in the future (...and then again, it may be easier given the transient nature of this new generation). I personally think a cut off date where anyone after the date is given a certain amount into their 401K and those before continue with the plan may be the way to go. However, I'm still learning all the sides of the issue.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

Jim,

Easy, yes. Logical, maybe not. I applaud your intent and agree that we need to change. However, the agreement goes beyond a labor contract. By that I mean the agreement pertains to a longer timeframe (typicaly twenty years or so for Fire and Police since I can't speak about teachers). I would be interested to see some concrete examples of how the industry did this years ago (I confess that I am not familiar with how they calculated that). As you can see I'm not ashamed to admit that I do not have knowledge of certain aspects--much like I am sure you have no knowledge of certain aspects of the agreements made regarding longevity in the pension plans. Together, we can learn and find equitable solutions. These are tough decisions and the individuals that are in those positions are putting their lives on the line in return for the agreement. It may not be easy to get the same caliber of person to fill those positions in the future (...and then again, it may be easier given the transient nature of this new generation). I personally think a cut off date where anyone after the date is given a certain amount into their 401K and those before continue with the plan may be the way to go. However, I'm still learning all the sides of the issue.

The private sector has made these changes in many different ways. Most companies either cut the pension all together or grandfather it so that any new employee hired after X date is left out. Other private companies, like my wife's actually grandfather vested employees with a pension but after you make over a certain salary, the higher wage earners pay into the pension fund from their salary to subsidize the whole plan (similar to taxing the "rich" to give to the poor) Let’s see a union or public employee make that concession.

As for caliber of people.......the private sector has not had a problem hiring people when they need to and they are not loosing high caliber people due to not offering a pension. I’d be willing to bet that if pensions were rolled into a 401K's we would not see police and teachers fleeing from their jobs. I also think people that are years from retirement (like me) assume that a pension will not be there for them in 30-40 years so it would not make an impact on finding “high caliber” people.

[Chesapeake Bill]

Piscator,

There is a federal agency set up to absorb those funds that failed...the Pension Benefit Guarantee Bureau (we joke that PBGB closely sounds like heebee jeebees!). That's where United pilots went when their fund went belly up along with lots of others. What I find amazing is that railroad retirement, the only federally mandated retirement fund, is self-sufficient at this point. However, their members pay almost 3.5 times what we pay into social security.

When it comes to attracting good people I think the discussion has to be broken into the respective groups, i.e. firefighter, teachers, police, and other public servant. I do think it would be difficult to keep qualified firefighters if they did not have the pensions that they have. However, they are also taking, for the most part, big concessions during the econic downturn (at least here where I live) and no I am not a firefighter. In my area teachers and police have refused concessions. I find that to be the real hard pill to swallow and a major reason why I am less inclined to work with them. I don't dislike unions (I actually pay my dues and I am a conservative)...I dislike unions that bring nothing to the table and expect everything. We all need to take cuts. However, figuring out what cuts to take is the big issue. I'd like to see the first Congressman willing to not take the pension or health benefits provided after only 8 years in office (try getting that in a contract!!).

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

I'd like to see the first Congressman willing to not take the pension or health benefits provided after only 8 years in office (try getting that in a contract!!).

I think Ron Paul has refused the pension.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

Piscator,

There is a federal agency set up to absorb those funds that failed...the Pension Benefit Guarantee Bureau (we joke that PBGB closely sounds like heebee jeebees!). That's where United pilots went when their fund went belly up along with lots of others. What I find amazing is that railroad retirement, the only federally mandated retirement fund, is self-sufficient at this point. However, their members pay almost 3.5 times what we pay into social security.

When it comes to attracting good people I think the discussion has to be broken into the respective groups, i.e. firefighter, teachers, police, and other public servant. I do think it would be difficult to keep qualified firefighters if they did not have the pensions that they have. However, they are also taking, for the most part, big concessions during the econic downturn (at least here where I live) and no I am not a firefighter. In my area teachers and police have refused concessions. I find that to be the real hard pill to swallow and a major reason why I am less inclined to work with them. I don't dislike unions (I actually pay my dues and I am a conservative)...I dislike unions that bring nothing to the table and expect everything. We all need to take cuts. However, figuring out what cuts to take is the big issue. I'd like to see the first Congressman willing to not take the pension or health benefits provided after only 8 years in office (try getting that in a contract!!).

Sorry for getting off topic in this thread but it's better than where this thing was going earlier...........

Chesapeake Bill: I agree with you for the most part. But I still think you will get qualified firefighters, teachers, & police without giving a pension (I could be wrong). Up here in Mass we have some very very highly paid police and fire (many of my very close friends are in the profession so I know) Now they work for a (small) city that pays them well so I'm sure they are on the higher end for the state as a whole but you would still not believe what they get paid. Granted, they put their life on the line and you can't take that away from them, but they will even admit (to me atleast) how good they really have it when it comes to compensation (their Union would NEVER say that). The guys on the fire all have sencond businesses on the side as well as much of their work is overnight so they get to sleep on slow nights. Again, they aren't at home in their own bed and you have to give them credit for that (they do say it is nice to be able to sleepo on the job though).

When did the PBGB get started? (shows you how much I don't know). I was always under the impression that the Enron and Polaroid folks literally lost everything. I had a friend who's Dad worked for Polaroid for years and when they went under, he lost his whole pension (maybe it was before PBGB?)

[mosholu]

Jim in CT: I take your point that you draw a line in the sand and go forward but I think you are buying a major lawsuit that the state may well lose if it does not pay the money it was required to do so before the cut off date.
Piscator: In the private example there is no more money left at the company to pay into the pensions. With a state that has assets and the power to tax that is not the case which again that leads to a lawsuit and would really hurt the state in the bond market.

The current issue of the Economist has a great article on public sector employees and the issues facing both the US and the developed European countries. Well worth reading if you have the time.

[Piscator]

[QUOTE=mosholu;826182]
Piscator: In the private example there is no more money left at the company to pay into the pensions. With a state that has assets and the power to tax that is not the case which again that leads to a lawsuit and would really hurt the state in the bond market. QUOTE]

The private sector is in business to make as much money and profit as they can. If they can’t even afford pensions then why should the Government (who is not in the business to make money or profit) be expected to provide that to their employees? I'm not saying current employees shouldn't be entitled to them to some degree but it should be grandfathered and ended to new hires. Some (not all) of the state salaries are through the roof and there are pensions associated with those. As these salaries continue to rise, so doesn’t the pensions and it isn’t sustainable. The private sector pretty much ended it and the public sector needs to take a close look at it too (let's face it, the private sector is a hell of a lot smarter than the Government).
Check this link out, it list of salaries for Mass employees. Some of the State Troopers are making north of $150K and some Lieutenant’s well over $180K a year. Those pensions are a huge hit to tax payers money and can't be sustained. The only thing they can do is continue to raise taxes to pay for it. When will it end?

Your tax dollars at work: 2009 State Employee Payroll - Boston Herald.com

[Chesapeake Bill]

Piscator,

I like your thoughts and appreciate your discussion. If we don't have these tough talks we will never find the answer. I was wrong. It is Corporation, not Bureau as I previosuly mentioned (Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)). Very interesting reading on their site. The beneficiaries rarely get much of their benefits back as a per dollar ratio but at least they get something. I'm afraid that is where a lot of these benefit funds will be if we don't so something.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

Piscator,

I like your thoughts and appreciate your discussion. If we don't have these tough talks we will never find the answer.

Chesapeake Bill, Same here! I appreciate your discussion as well. That's what I like about this site.

[RIROCKHOUND]

I don't want to blame either side.
He was a mentally derranged person. In the state with close to the most lineient gun laws in the country, he was able to buy a semi-automatic handgun with extended magazines? That is an underlying issue.

Craig brings up a good point; he lived at home, WTF were his parents doing???

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I don't want to blame either side.
He was a mentally derranged person. In the state with close to the most lineient gun laws in the country, he was able to buy a semi-automatic handgun with extended magazines? That is an underlying issue.

Craig brings up a good point; he lived at home, WTF were his parents doing???

Great post. Crazy is crazy, these people are going to be set off by something that makes no sense to us.

I did watch the coverage again last night, and some folks at MSNBC and the New York Times are actually accusing Sarah Palin of being an accessory to mass murder. It's putrid, it's just an attempt by the left (not all on the left, but too many) to silence those with whom they disagree.

RIROCKHOUND makes a good point. There are no rational reason I cna think of, why a citizen should be able to buy extended magazines for handguns.

[scottw]

RIROCKHOUND makes a good point. There are no rational reason I cna think of, why a citizen should be able to buy extended magazines for handguns.[/QUOTE]

and predictably, many are saying..ahhh, forget about those allegations that we made over the weekend...what we need to do is focus on gun control now and the fairness doctorine....Jim, Bryan....if we ban "extended magazines" would this have been prevented? I don't own a gun, my little brother shot himself in the head with a gun, I don't see why anyone needs an extended magazine or whatever they are but to try to shift this to a gun control debate is absurd and more an attempt to further a political issue through a massacre by a nut.....the guy was a nut, if he couldn't get a gun legally he would and could get one illegally or build a bomb or just drive his car through the crowd....he was obvoiusly going to hurt someone and apparenlty a lot of people saw the signs and said nothing...which seems to be the case in many of these occurances....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

RIROCKHOUND makes a good point. There are no rational reason I cna think of, why a citizen should be able to buy extended magazines for handguns.

and predictably, many are saying..ahhh, forget about those allegations that we made over the weekend...what we need to do is focus on gun control now and the fairness doctorine....Jim, Bryan....if we ban "extended magazines" would this have been prevented? I don't own a gun, my little brother shot himself in the head with a gun, I don't see why anyone needs an extended magazine or whatever they are but to try to shift this to a gun control debate is absurd and more an attempt to further a political issue through a massacre by a nut.....the guy was a nut, if he couldn't get a gun legally he would and could get one illegally or build a bomb or just drive his car through the crowd....he was obvoiusly going to hurt someone and apparenlty a lot of people saw the signs and said nothing...which seems to be the case in many of these occurances....[/QUOTE]

Scott, I do believe there is too much access to crazy weaponry. This guy's rampage ended when he was tackled as he stopped to reload. To me, it's very possible that if his magazine had 12 rounds instead of the extended capacity (30 rounds I think?), he would have fired fewer bullets before he was subdued.

Stricter gun control won't eliminate gun crime entirely, obviously. But I'm sure it would reduce gun deaths. Not everyone can build a bomb, or get their hands on one.

[mosholu]

Originally Posted by scottw

RIROCKHOUND makes a good point. There are no rational reason I cna think of, why a citizen should be able to buy extended magazines for handguns.

and predictably, many are saying..ahhh, forget about those allegations that we made over the weekend...what we need to do is focus on gun control now and the fairness doctorine....Jim, Bryan....if we ban "extended magazines" would this have been prevented? I don't own a gun, my little brother shot himself in the head with a gun, I don't see why anyone needs an extended magazine or whatever they are but to try to shift this to a gun control debate is absurd and more an attempt to further a political issue through a massacre by a nut.....the guy was a nut, if he couldn't get a gun legally he would and could get one illegally or build a bomb or just drive his car through the crowd....he was obvoiusly going to hurt someone and apparenlty a lot of people saw the signs and said nothing...which seems to be the case in many of these occurances....[/QUOTE]

Scott you are right in saying there is no way to really effectively limit what a committed crazy person will do to get where he wants to be. But in all political issues things work on a stimulus/response basis. So now that this tragedy has occurred is it wrong to look at whether extended magazines have any place being freely available in our society. While we may not stop these nuts should we do nothing to make it harder? I do not know that much about guns but I have a hard time thinking of a legitimate reason why someone would need a 33 shot clip in a pistol. There should at least be a debate about it at an appropriate time.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by mosholu

I have a hard time thinking of a legitimate reason why someone would need a 33 shot clip in a pistol. There should at least be a debate about it at an appropriate time.

I have a hard time thinking of a legitimate reason why someone with a 33 shot clip in one gun, or 15 shot clips and two guns or ten shot clips in three guns would do what this guy did....I think we have a running gun control debate in this country... but for many, when things like this happen the knee jerk reaction is to look for an object to villify and it rarely includes the guilty party, he's dismissed as a nut(only after it shown he wasn't a tea party member) and his motivations are assigned to, in this case, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush, Conservatives, Republicans, Talk Radio, Tea Party, Gun Lobby, anti-illegal immigrant hate( essentially, anyone who is a strong voice against the left and their agenda) ....or maybe it's the fact that you can buy a 33 round clip for your gun...of course!....that's why he did it....if we could just ban those clips, these things would never occur

Peter King is supposed to submit legislation banning guns from 1000 feet of a Public Official....that would have certainly stopped this...right?...hey Peter, make it 10,000 feet while you are at it also, ban radical jihadists with bombs or flying airplanes from coming within 1000 feet of any building or gathering.... OK?

hey...what about Hollywood and the graphic violence portrayed there, what about music (nope, big democratic donors) and what about video games? this guy is a 22 year old recluse with creepy skull things in his yard.....not your typical Talk Radio demographic....

but the left and their media accomplices assign and continue to blame all of their "enemies" without a shread of evidence...........

and then there's this:

Dem Congressman who called for GOP Gov. to be put against a wall and shot now pleads for civility

01/11/11 1:15 PM
Ex-Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., pens an op-ed in the New York Times today about the proper political response to this weekend's tragedy. I wholeheartedly support the former Congressman (Kanjorski lost his seat in November) when he argues that, following this weekend's shooting, Congressman need to remain open and accessible to the public. However, Kanjorski is rather hypocritical when he climbs up on his soapbox:

We all lose an element of freedom when security considerations distance public officials from the people. Therefore, it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation.

Incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect? Congressman heal thyself! Yesterday, I noted that, according to the Scranton Times, Kanjorski said this about Florida's new Republican Governor Rick Scott on October 23:

"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."

I'll give Kanjorski the benefit of the doubt that he did not literally mean Scott schould be killed. Regardless, Kanjorski's way over the rhetorical line compared to the kinds of statements liberals are pointing to as evidence that Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are creating a "climate of hate," to borrow Paul Krugman's phrase. And somehow I doubt that there would have been crickets from the national media if a Republican politician called for a Democratic candidate to be shot barely a week before the election.
...................
I rarely see the Morning Joke but I did catch a clip from this morning or yesterday where the guy who I think is Joke Scarborough went on a very extended, detailed rant about the rhetoric spewed by Glenn Beck and the damage that he's doing and the people that he is inciting to which the little twit next to him added.."this should be a wake up call for the republicans"...Joke continued to rant and was interrupeted briefly by another head sitting there who asked him a question about Beck to which Joke replied "I don't know, I don't watch or listen to Beck"
he savaged Beck repeatedly very sure of his accusations only to admit later that he hever listens...?????

Joke is obviously incredibly jealous of Glenn Beck and Joke appears to be seething with hate...


this is a wake up call all right...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by mosholu

Scott you are right in saying there is no way to really effectively limit what a committed crazy person will do to get where he wants to be. But in all political issues things work on a stimulus/response basis. So now that this tragedy has occurred is it wrong to look at whether extended magazines have any place being freely available in our society. While we may not stop these nuts should we do nothing to make it harder? I do not know that much about guns but I have a hard time thinking of a legitimate reason why someone would need a 33 shot clip in a pistol. There should at least be a debate about it at an appropriate time.

This point of view, while sounding very reasonable, is the result of how we have been viewing law over the past 75 years or so. Before that, we would have wondered if there was a legitimate reason why someone should not be allowed to have a 33 shot clip in a pistol. We have come to accept limitations on individual rights as equal to or more important than limitations on government. Rather than embracing individual freedom and the responsibilities of that freedom (responsible gun ownership, responsible behavior regardless of what others say no matter how "inflamatory" it might be), we react with fear to isolated incidents and believe that we can dispense with another "extravagant freedom" that some lunatic has used to kill by being "inflamed." All responsible citizens can, in our current view, shed an "unecessary" freedom and allow a government, that used to be prevented from doing so, dictate what arms or words we can possess.

And yes, I can think of legitimate reasons why one can own a 33 shot clip. If a handgun is owned for sport, it can be as much "fun" to rip off 33 shots as it is to shoot one. If it is a collector item, various clips complete the collection. If it is used for protection, 33 shots can protect you better than a lesser number--this is especially true in high crime, gang infested areas. Legitimately, until there is a "legitimate" law that says you can't own the clip, it's not your business to wonder why someone else should own it.

[JohnR]

Good question. His parents were probably walking on eggshells hoping nothing would ever happen.

What is the fix for those suffering from a mental illness? Is there a fix? Is fix the wrong word?

He was an adult so there was not much his parents could legally do without his consent.

I'm disappointed yet another tragedy has been politicized.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Good question. His parents were probably walking on eggshells hoping nothing would ever happen.

What is the fix for those suffering from a mental illness? Is there a fix? Is fix the wrong word?

He was an adult so there was not much his parents could legally do without his consent.

I'm disappointed yet another tragedy has been politicized.

Great question John R. There are a lot of unbalanced folks out there, but very few go this far. I think these occasional tragedies will remain a sad fact of life for the forseeable future. With more diligent oversight by parents and teachers, maybe we can avoid some of these tragedies, but they will never be eliminated.

[RIJIMMY]

crazy thread Im staying out of.

[RIJIMMY]

the media - news headline
Washington (CNN) -- Sen. Patrick Leahy issued a stern warning Tuesday on toning down the rhetoric that many say led to the shootings in Tucson, Arizona.

"The seething rhetoric has gone too far. The demonizing of opponents, of government, of public service has gone too far," the Vermont Democrat said at an event the Newseum in Washington. "Our politics have become incendiary and we all share the responsibility for lowering the temperature. That is the responsibility we all have to keep our democracy strong and thriving."

many? Many? many what? Many speculators? Many people that knew the shooter? many experts? many kindergarteners?
Lousy, lousy, lousy reporting. The author should be ashamed. There is zero proof any rhetoric led to this.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

the media - news headline
Washington (CNN) -- Sen. Patrick Leahy issued a stern warning Tuesday on toning down the rhetoric that many say led to the shootings in Tucson, Arizona.

many? Many? many what? Many speculators? Many people that knew the shooter? many experts? many kindergarteners?
Lousy, lousy, lousy reporting. The author should be ashamed. There is zero proof any rhetoric led to this

I Agree, Very Very Crappy reporting

"The seething rhetoric has gone too far. The demonizing of opponents, of government, of public service has gone too far," the Vermont Democrat said at an event the Newseum in Washington. "Our politics have become incendiary and we all share the responsibility for lowering the temperature. That is the responsibility we all have to keep our democracy strong and thriving."

Very Very good Sentiment lost in it too.....

[Chesapeake Bill]

Jim,

I apologized for appearing to stereoype you with others I expect the same in return. As a responsible gun owner, including an AR-15 (M16 is such a cliche) and numerous hgandguns with large magazines I do not appreciate being "lumped" into the same sentence with pedophiles. Put your stones away, my friend, less the glass house come crashing...

[scottw]

never waste a good crisis...is this a new low?...fundraising on the backs of the victims of a shooting? Maybe Patrick Leahy should talk to his friend...


Sanders Fundraises Off Arizona Murders
3:20 PM, Jan 11, 2011 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES
There has been no shortage of individuals and institutions that have sought to capitalize on the shootings in Tucson. Add Vermont senator Bernie Sanders to that list.

This afternoon Sanders sent out a fundraising appeal, seeking to raise money to fight Republicans and other “right-wing reactionaries” responsible for the climate that led to the shooting.
....................
Leahy must be referring to things like this :

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy accused Republicans Sunday of playing the race card on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

“You have one leader of the Republican Party call her the equivalent of the head of the Ku Klux Klan. Another leader of the Republican Party called her a bigot,” the Vermont Democrat(Leahy) said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Leahy should wash his own mouth out with soap before climbling on his soapbox....

..................

atta boy Patches.........


Patrick Kennedy: Blame Palin, Tea Partyers
Tuesday, 11 Jan 2011 05:53 PM

Former Rep. Patrick Kennedy, whose uncles John and Robert Kennedy both fell to assassins’ bullets, says there is a direct connection between Sarah Palin and the shooting rampage in Arizona that killed six people and wounded 14 others, including critically injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Kennedy indicated that he also blames the tea parties for the tragedy.

In an interview published on Politico Tuesday, Kennedy states:" When the vitriol and the rhetoric is so violent, we have to connect consequences to that.”

In the Politico interview, an animated Kennedy appeared to come to Loughner’s defense, saying he and others had been unfairly stigmatized.
“When I hear terms about the alleged shooter in this case, pejorative terms like psycho, lunatic, or they say ‘He’s crazy.’ These are terms we use to describe someone’s mental health?

“This is a rare opportunity to take all the stigma and stereotyping,” Kennedy said, “and take the terms like crazy and psycho, that are being bandied about by reputable people who should know better, and use this as an opportunity to have some enlightened debate about better public policy that can help respond to the real need."



WOW!

I get it now.... you sink to the lowest depth of depravity to villify your "enemy" and then race to call for "civility".......

[Fly Rod]

In Massachusetts I would say that a large marjority of permitted gun holders have the large capacity pistol permit, I most cerntainly do. There is 30,000 people in my city, a six shooter just won't do it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

Jim,

I apologized for appearing to stereoype you with others I expect the same in return. As a responsible gun owner, including an AR-15 (M16 is such a cliche) and numerous hgandguns with large magazines I do not appreciate being "lumped" into the same sentence with pedophiles. Put your stones away, my friend, less the glass house come crashing...

Bill, I didn't lump you in with pedophiles. What I said was, if something is "fun", that does not mean it's good public policy. In my opinion, and I'm not sure how anyone can disagree with this, our society would have less blood on its hands if we outlawed these things. Pistols for target shooting, fine. Hunting rifles, fine. I don't like assault rifles, which are designed for one, and only one, purpose - to kill as many human beings as possible in a short time. No one other than the police and the military have any need for such things.

You want to get your rocks off shooting assault rifles, do what I did and serve a hitch in the service..

I just don't see the appeal of that stuff, no more than I would own a rattlesnake or tiger for a pet. Some people have some voyeuristic, fantasy-based attraction to dangerous things. When ownership of those things reduces the life expectancy of innocent people living around you, we need to have a mature conversation about what's more important.

That's my opinion. I think it's very reasonable.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Bill, I didn't lump you in with pedophiles. What I said was, if something is "fun", that does not mean it's good public policy. In my opinion, and I'm not sure how anyone can disagree with this, our society would have less blood on its hands if we outlawed these things. Pistols for target shooting, fine. Hunting rifles, fine. I don't like assault rifles, which are designed for one, and only one, purpose - to kill as many human beings as possible in a short time. No one other than the police and the military have any need for such things.

You want to get your rocks off shooting assault rifles, do what I did and serve a hitch in the service..

I just don't see the appeal of that stuff, no more than I would own a rattlesnake or tiger for a pet. Some people have some voyeuristic, fantasy-based attraction to dangerous things. When ownership of those things reduces the life expectancy of innocent people living around you, we need to have a mature conversation about what's more important.

That's my opinion. I think it's very reasonable.

It's not.. Innocent people are not killed by law abiding people. I don't know how you could disagree with that. Banning guns will not prevent thugs and nut cases from killing others. It's been proven over and over again.

You are basing your opinion on emotion "Some people have some voyeuristic, fantasy-based attraction to dangerous things. "
Very liberal of you

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

It's not.. Innocent people are not killed by law abiding people. I don't know how you could disagree with that. Banning guns will not prevent thugs and nut cases from killing others. It's been proven over and over again.

You are basing your opinion on emotion "Some people have some voyeuristic, fantasy-based attraction to dangerous things. "
Very liberal of you

"Banning guns will not prevent thugs and nut cases from killing others."

Very few things bother me as much as what you just did. I disagree with you on the ownership of assault rifles and extended magazines, and you portray me as an anti-gun extremist who wants to ban all guns. That may make it easier for you to refute me, but it has zero intellectual honesty, because that's not even close to what I said. See if you can respond to what I actually say, OK? I said explicitly that I have no problem with pistols and hunting rifles.

"Innocent people are not killed by law abiding people"

Wow, that's deep. EARTH TO BUCKMAN. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing who is law abiding and who is sociopathic. Therefore, do we make the tools of mass murder readily available to everyone, including the secretly deranged, so that some would-be tough guys can live out their fantasies by dressing up like Rambo in front of the mirror?

I agree, if we ban extended magazines and assault rifles, shooting sprees will still occur. But they will be harder to carry out, and the body counts will be less. That's irrefutable. You can't kill as many people with a revolver as you can with an automatic weapon, you just can't. There is a reason why this kook did not bring a muzzle loader to that supermarket. So how many beautiful 9 year old gilrs are you willing to sacrifice, so that a bunch of guys with small wee-wees can get their jollies by owning an Uzi?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I disagree with you on the ownership of assault rifles and extended magazines, and you portray me as an anti-gun extremist who wants to ban all guns.

Welcome to the Political Forum.......thats pretty standard fair here

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Banning guns will not prevent thugs and nut cases from killing others."

Very few things bother me as much as what you just did. I disagree with you on the ownership of assault rifles and extended magazines, and you portray me as an anti-gun extremist who wants to ban all guns. That may make it easier for you to refute me, but it has zero intellectual honesty, because that's not even close to what I said. See if you can respond to what I actually say, OK? I said explicitly that I have no problem with pistols and hunting rifles.

"Innocent people are not killed by law abiding people"


Wow, that's deep. EARTH TO BUCKMAN. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing who is law abiding and who is sociopathic. Therefore, do we make the tools of mass murder readily available to everyone, including the secretly deranged, so that some would-be tough guys can live out their fantasies by dressing up like Rambo in front of the mirror?

I agree, if we ban extended magazines and assault rifles, shooting sprees will still occur. But they will be harder to carry out, and the body counts will be less. That's irrefutable. You can't kill as many people with a revolver as you can with an automatic weapon, you just can't. There is a reason why this kook did not bring a muzzle loader to that supermarket. So how many beautiful 9 year old gilrs are you willing to sacrifice, so that a bunch of guys with small wee-wees can get their jollies by owning an Uzi?

I did not portray you as an anti-gun extremist . Try to relax a bit.

Banning the number of bullets a gun can hold, pick a number, won't stop this sort of killing. Your rantings, although appealing to emotional liberals, which you don't like, don't belong in a well thought out debate in solving the problem.

FYI alot of people new this guy was a sociopath.