Uncle Joe Can Kiss My Butt

Jay...playing the silly semantics game I see.

You continue to display ignorance, Karen Anne, which is alright.  But there is a huge world out there and you seem quick to deride people who are not ignorant of it.  We have weapons all over our house, but they are in safes, real gun safes, that DO NOT look like safes.  Our daughter does not even know the weapons are there.  And even if she did, she could not get to them.  They are NEVER left out or in a drawer.  You can take that to the bank.

The weapons used at the school in CT were legally obtained, but poorly stored, by someone who was untrained in their use and storage.  And the very strict gun laws there could do nothing to prevent it because everything in that house was legal.  Until, that is, a crazy boy got ahold of them and did what he did.  Laws cannot prevent people like him from obtaining weapons and doing bad things.

The person who left those guns in a place for her crazy son to get them was NOT trained in their use or storage.  So, in that regard, you are correct about the human nature, but incorrect about the trained part.  She should have been more trained in the possession, storage and use of those weapons.  And her obeying the law, without training herself as regards that law, was the cause of the disaster.  How do you legislate that people act smart? 

Do you remember the shooting at the MacDonald's in Killeen TX 25 years ago?  I was there then.  The paper had an article that said that such a thing could not have happened there 100 years prior.  Why not?  Think carefully.

My use of the word NO up there is intentional, but you are right, it is specific.  My use of ALWAYS was to make a point to Karl, who, by the way, I am very friendly with.

So, which of my two schools in comment 6 is the safer school?

Jay, I do not know which one is safer, but if I had a child of elementary age, I would send him or her to the gun-free school.

And, I was not directing my comments toward anyone who has had years and years of safe gun use, but to folks like most teachers, whom I am guessing having a gun on their person is a brand new, and for them, an extreme happening.

I cannot impress upon you how much the tone of your comment irritates me this morning.  Honestly, your arrogant attitude does not become you.  Your attempt at casting me in the light of full ignorance as far as anything gun-wise is concerned does not sit well.

You folks have a lovely day.

Wonder if Karen Anne ever reads her own responses? Talk about arrogant attitudes and know-it-all statements. If you disagree with her you are wrong and crazy and a right wing loon.

Just check the history. Once the guns are confiscated it makes it much easier for a dictator to take control. Doesn't mean Obama will try it, but what about 3 presidents from now when pistols have been confiscated too? Several liberals have stated pistols need to be eliminated too.

I would rather have my kids in an armed school just like all the politicians (who want to take away our rights).

I think I can safely say that Mike got a little carried away with the 0 and added 3 too many. Six million is the number typically used. But you knew that Karen Anne and can't dispute the facts so you make the snide remark "is about the same as the current population of the entire world.  Arithmetic, remember?" with the IDIOT strongly implied.

Really, what is an 'assault rifle'? An AR-15 is nothing more than a hunting rifle with a few added features. Typically a pistol grip, adjustable stock, flash suppressor and a barrel shroud. None of those 'features' make the gun more or less dangerous. They may make it look more 'EVIL' or menacing to those who know nothing about guns, but they add nothing to the deadliness of the rifle.

Karl: How come wanting to ban partial birth abortions (as an example Karl) means that the right wants to ban all abortions and banning partial birth abortions is just one step closer to overturning Roe vs Wade.......

What about immigration reform, Karl? As soon as it is mentioned the left and the media (but I repeat myself) start screaming that all illegals will be deported, families torn apart and any who supports the enforcement of our immigration laws is nothing more than a RACIST!

Don't accuse conservatives of the 'silly semantics' game when it was invented by the left.

Man, I was going to stay out of this one............

For arguments sake I'll concede the points made in reference to abortion and immigration (though to be accurate, so-called partial birth abortions and entering the country illegally are already written into law). But let's re-focus; how are the current recommendations for new gun regulations going to affect the 2nd?

There is not a specification on the type of arms that can be possessed (bear), Karl. To be fair, there are plenty of gun laws on the books, too Karl. They just aren't enforced. People with mental illness and criminal records can't own guns, but they got them and BROKE THE LAWS that ALREADY existed. There is a whole list of laws the kid in Newtown broke, but an armed guard or trained teacher could have ended the attack. Why do you think he picked an elementary school? It is called a soft target: easy, defenseless children and no adults with anything to protect them.

I have heard people say "The founders had no idea what types of weapons we would have....." True and I think they left it open on purpose. Just like they didn't limit the armed forces to an army and navy (the only things that existed at that time). They wanted the country to be able to defend itself and we are able to have an air force strictly because they did not try to get too specific.

Limiting the type of rifle (and read my post above, an assault rifle is nothing more than a 'prettied up' rifle or 'uglied up' if you want them banned) infringes on my rights to bear arms. If the military can have an assault rifle or the police I should be able to have one too. IF we ever have a dictator try to take control, I do not want to be using a pistol to defend my family from jack-booted thugs with machine guns and assault rifles.

That is how it infringes on the 2nd amendment.

Besides, enforce the current laws. These new laws only affect people willing to follow the law. The criminals will continue to own 'assault rifles', since they are already criminals.

To me the crux of the argument is this one: "If the military can have an assault rifle or the police I should be able to have one too. IF we ever have a dictator try to take control, I do not want to be using a pistol to defend my family from jack-booted thugs with machine guns and assault rifles."

So, in that vein, we should be able to own say, a Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon...right?

Yep, Karl. See, those that are law abiding citizens should be able to own one if they want. If they aren't a criminal then why not? (My answer is no more inane than your question.)

But, if that stupid statement is the best you can come up with then you realize you have lost the argument. Reducing or limiting the clip size is an INFRINGEMENT on my right to bear arms. It doesn't say single shot or muzzle load or anything about size, power, ammo amount, etc.

I have the right to arm myself.

Geez:  Compared to what I see and hear here... Texas is a purple, moderate state.

You may have the right to bear "arms," but nowhere do I see you have the right to "clip" yourself.  Please, just stay on your side of the river, ok?  How about tanks, anti-aircraft guns, and even rocket launchers?  You want them as well?  Where do you stop? 

Maybe a bomber or two for special occasions.  You might be able to pick up a nice used B-1 for a decent price.  Maybe some Stingers?

Than, I'm actually not 'for' more so-called 'gun control' as I think that ship has sailed (300 million privately held firearms). I just wanted to expose the type of craziness that passes for political thought from the extreme right-wing...which is so out of step with modern America and her people. 

So Obama thinks that he should be protected by guys that have guns but not the average citizen. Obama believes that it is fine to send his kids to schools that have armed guards but my kids don't deserve the same protection? Bloomberg while surrounded by armed guards wants to disarm everyone. What I see here is another step that makes most of us subjects not citizens of America. The 2nd amendment gives us the right to own weapons so an over baring government can be disposed of as happened in 1776.

Dale, take a deep breath, no one is talking about suspending the 2nd. And your right, the President's children, (any President's), or those around them, do not need additional security (sarcasm). This is what I'm talking about; having this type of conversation with folks on the extreme right bears no resemblance to current reality...

The 'clip' is part of the gun. No different than the barrel or trigger. Why don't you just outlaw bullets. They aren't part of the gun. Makes as much sense as the clip size restriction.

You went even more stupid than Karl, Karen Anne, but that is standard for your posts. If the government comes after us with tanks and bombers, we are screwed. But, it takes a lot more to run a tank and bomber and a whole lot harder to hide or excuse that type of force than to send a few squads of jack-booted' thugs out to arrest people for made up charges or for the 'safety of the nation'.

Read your history. Many in Germany let this group or that group be arrested and/or eliminated and by the time they realized the extent of the Nazi madness there was almost no one left to object.

Of course you aren't talking about suspending the 2nd amendment Karl, just modifying it to fit your views. There have been numerous liberals that have stated the next target is pistols, but the media just ignores them and doesn't plaster them all over the place.

Next liberals will say no one needs a rifle at all. Hunters can use crossbows or muzzle loaders they don't need rifles! And the slippery slope just gets steeper and steeper.

Karl, the erosion or citizens rights usual doesn't happen in one giant step. It's the constant chipping away, piece by piece that takes them away. You say take a deep breath but I have taken so many during the current administrations term its time to stop. Our rights, are being taken away piece by piece. Karl, I have read a lot of the things you have written on AR, and your positions are reasonable and your opinions well thought out, but in this case I believe you see this as the end, rather than the first step. Consider (take a deep breath) for a moment the possibility that what are seeing is the first step of a series of steps to disarm honest citizens who believe that self protection IS a right, and not a privilege for the privileged. Respectfully I ask that you consider this alternative position.

I understand the 'slippery-slope' argument, but we've had gun control laws since 1934 with very little slope being slipped upon.

Interesting that the same sheeple that would be happy to take away your gun ownership rights, would vote for an administration that supplies killers (Mexican drug cartels) with assault weapons