I have a feeling that we agree on more topics than we disagree. However, there appears to be no middle ground here and I think we need to let it go. I sincerely admire your passion and do in fact understand where you are coming from. I really do. However, I am in no way going to concede that my opinion is not every bit as valid. I could argue all day that we dont need pipe bombs and thats why they are neither manufactured nor legal....etc.,etc. We will just have to agree to disagree here and call it a day. I did enjoy the debate and appreciate you keeping it classy.
Today 14 illigal immigrants died when the truck they were being smuggled in ran off the highway. They had 23 people in a ford f250. Imagine if they had a limit on how many people you can put in a truck. How many lives could have been saved?Should we have a limit on the size of a truck to make sure this cannot happen again? Just food for thought.
I can agree to those terms with the exception of one. I don’t much care for “feelings” in matters of policy. Its a fool that searches for logic in the chambers of the heart when the organ more suited rests above the neck. You have set your limit for government involvement in matters of the 2nd amendment and I fear you are giving away much with no real return. I cant abide by that. should the feds use the event in CO to try to play on the sympathies of the national conversation on gun rights, I will protest and fight. Should they try to enact sweeping new gun laws, then I say cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war that this foul deed shall smell above the earth With carrion men, groaning for burial. (A little Julius Caesar act 3, scene 1 for ya)
I think Rancid has pretty much covered anything I might say to this topic in this thread but I figure you all might want to see the response I received from one of three representatives from MI(this one is our senior senator) I contacted regarding the upcoming UN action for small arms controls. This is the first step to making gun ownership the will of the government and not the people. Flag this messageRe: Your ConcernsMonday, July 23, 2012 7:34 PM From: "Senator Carl Levin" <[email protected]>Add sender to ContactsTo: [email protected] Dear Mr. Lukach: Thank you for contacting me about the proposed United Nations (UN) Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). I appreciate hearing your views on this matter. The illegal manufacture and trafficking of firearms contributes to crime and violence around the world by arming criminals, terrorists, and other militant groups. Illicit firearms, especially small arms and light weapons, can destabilize entire regions by fueling armed conflict and violence against innocent civilians. In addition, the presence of such weapons complicates humanitarian relief programs, peacekeeping initiatives and the development of democratic societies. According to the United Nations, there are more than 875 million small arms and light weapons in circulation worldwide, and these weapons are responsible for approximately 300,000 deaths every year. Over the years, the United States and other UN member governments have undertaken both national and international efforts to combat the significant increase in illegally manufactured and trafficked firearms. U.S. policy includes attempting to curb black market transfers of small arms to zones of conflict, terrorists, international criminal organizations and/or drug traffickers; encouraging other nations to raise arms export standards to U.S. standards; streamlining and strengthening U.S. export procedures to improve accountability without interfering with the legal trade in or transfer of arms; and supporting the destruction of excess stockpiles of small arms, particularly in regions where conflicts have ended. In July 2001, a nonbinding “Program of Action” (PoA) was adopted by UN member governments, including the United States, that encouraged nations to ensure that manufacturers use markings on small arms and light weapons to facilitate the tracing of illicit weapons transfers; establish procedures to monitor legal sales, transfer and stockpiling of small arms and light weapons; and make the illegal manufacture, trade and possession of such weapons a criminal offense. In 2008, the UN General Assembly convened a UN Group of Governmental Experts to examine the possibility of an international treaty focused on denying arms to groups that would abuse them, including rogue states, terrorist organizations and illegal militias. Under the Bush administration, the United States was an active participant in the 2008 UN Group of Governmental Experts and endorsed the Group’s recommendations for an international framework for controlling the international conventional arms trade. In October 2009, the United States voted for a UN resolution laying out a schedule for talks on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, including a final UN Conference on the ATT in 2012. The United States supported the resolution in part because it states that the 2012 Conference will operate under the rule of consensus decision-making, a provision that was necessary to gain U.S. backing. According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “as long as that Conference operates under the rule of consensus decision-making needed to ensure that all countries can be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation by denying arms to those who would abuse them, the United States will actively support the negotiations. Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly.” In this instance, consensus decision-making means that the United States maintains its right to veto any agreement produced by the 2012 Conference. Some have raised concerns that UN efforts to combat the illegal international arms trade may restrict the rights of law-abiding American citizens, despite the fact that the proposed ATT is focused on the illegal manufacture and trafficking of firearms around the world. While I believe these concerns are misplaced in regard to the proposed ATT, it is important that any efforts to curb the illegal international arms trade do not infringe on the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens. As the world’s largest exporter of conventional weapons and a government that is widely considered to have the gold-standard on arms export controls, the United States has a special responsibility to promote responsible global arms trade. I support ratification of a strong and effective ATT, and I look forward to working with the administration and my Senate colleagues to achieve that goal. Thank you again for contacting me. Sincerely, Carl Levin levin.senate.gov I am sorry but the fact that other countries can't take care of themselves and the fact that our Government will hold the power to veto any action that would infringe upon my rights as a gun owner doesn't set well with me. Our current administration if they had the power to limit our rights as gun owners would be more than happy to do so, if they could. Another point that must be made is that there are currently no definitions as to what will constitute legal or illegal small arms. From what I have seen in the U.K. and various previous actions by those countries involved including our neighbors to the north it will start with Semi-automatic weapons as full automatic weapons are already effectively illegal(and who needs to worry about magazine capacity when your carrying a single-shot). Then they will have to focus on firearms/cartridges with a lethal range of over say 200yards(perhaps less) as there is no practical use for long distance shooting except for snipers in combat....I could spew on and on but what a waste of a perfectly good evening.
I for one will not accept your apology - not needed....but if you have a stand on this issue make it known to your elected representatives - don't just waste your typing skills here.
Those 14 people made a choice to break the law, they knew what might happen. I am guessing the folks in theater did not know they were going to shot at. Guys fletch is right, if the gun would not have jammed this would have been horrific and laws would have changed and passed in a knee jerk reaction.
^ this. When it jammed, he switched to a different gun and kept shooting, that gun did not have a high capacity magazine yet he kept shooting.
I think maybe the better phrasing is if the rifle hadn't jammed, it would have been even more horrific. I didn't catch the caliber of the pistols, I would assume 9mm. But there is a giant difference in the fire power of a .223 vs a 9mm.
The pistols were 40 cal. Funny thing with criminals, they tend not to follow laws. Aurora, CO and even the UN may try to use this as further justification for ordinances/laws/treaties, which criminals and psychos won't follow. In the case of the UN treaty, law abiding citizens 2nd amendment rights are nullified under the auspices of feelings and a federal government that is responsible for much of the gun trade the UN is seeking to stop. Crazy idea here, how bout our government stop selling guns, instead of a treaty with much broader impacts. Aurora was tragic. So was 9/11 where guns played no significant role.
Problem is; some are confusing what is illogical with what is illegal. There are people who think illogically and as has been stated, someone operating in a mentally deficient manner cares not for what is logical or legal. Sure, laws can be changed to prevent law abiding citizens from doing what they would never do in the first place. No law will keep a crazy from going on a rampage. Just think, all it takes is to drive through a crowd of people with a vehicle and hundreds would be killed or injured. The logical thing being put forth here by a few of you would be: if that ever happens, let's limit the sale of cars to everyone in order to prevent people who would never consider driving in such a way from doing so. That is illogical thinking.
Do you guys have any idea how many preban magazines are floating around out there? There are probably more AR15 magazines floating around out there than any other type of rifle. Another AWB isn't going to do anything to stop those that want this stuff, there is already enough to supply the people that really want them. NY is a no assault weapon state, and by law I cannot purchase or possess a magazine for a semi auto rifle that holds more than 10 rounds, and was manufactured after the 1994 ban. With that said, it was super easy for me to buy a couple dozen of the legal variety, our local gun store sells them, I can buy them on the internet, I even bought a few off craigslist. In NY it's been 16 years since the ban. Renewing the assault weapon ban isn't going to do anything to those that really want this stuff. And those of us that have them surely aren't going to volunteer to turn them in. Hell, they said the kid played violent video games and smoked dope all the time, I'd say that is just as likely to have caused this scenario as the guns did, obviously the fact that the dope was illegal didn't work, but maybe we should ban the violent video games?
We said but remember, liberalism is not based on actually doing something, its about feel good measures that make us feel like we are addressing the problem all while taking more money from people to fund the feel good measures. The problem is nothing actually gets accomplished and eventually you run out of other people’s money to spend on the liberal causes. The fact that some here have not recognized this reality is really an indictment on the public education system which is run by liberals.
There always have and always will be psychologically unstable people in society. Societal trends that get blamed for these instances will change, but the outcome unfortunately will not. All of the gun laws, restrictions, bans, etc, etc. will NOT prevent criminals from obtaining said items and carrying out these senseless acts of violence. It's sad that it takes major acts of violence like this to bring the media and many political activists to their feet again to begin pushing further gun control. As misguided as it is, the cause should not be forgotten on their part. Instead of pointing the blame at an inanimate object, maybe we ought to put more effort toward the healing that needs to take place for all of those affected.
He swings, it's a long fly ball... this one has a chance... it's out of here!!! Rancid Crabtree has just hit a grand slam, walk off homerun!!! The crowd goes crazy!!!
