PDA

View Full Version : Here It Comes. Hide Your Guns!



M&K's Retrievers
12-16-2012, 08:59 PM
Obama and the Libs will save the country by banning guns and/or ammo. Wonder what they would do if that nut case had driven his car in to a crowd of people. Ban cars?

AAAAARRRRGH!!

mngundog
12-16-2012, 09:03 PM
I thought it was Romney that was the gun banning wacko.

luvmylabs23139
12-16-2012, 09:04 PM
I could not believe he did that, not there, not then.
The worst school mass murder in US history didn't even involve guns. It was bombs set by a school board member.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_Disaster

Quackwacker
12-16-2012, 09:05 PM
i watched that and was totally disgusted! What a idiot!

HPL
12-16-2012, 09:51 PM
i watched that and was totally disgusted! What a idiot!


Watched what and who's an idiot?

luvmylabs23139
12-16-2012, 09:59 PM
The memorial in Newtown. Obama went into a political rant of sorts in the middle of his speach.
It was neither the time nor the place for it.

zeus3925
12-16-2012, 11:40 PM
Luv: Any time you get two or more people together there are politics.

setterpete
12-16-2012, 11:47 PM
I kept waiting for Obama to say he was going to reinstate the assault weapons ban......right then.

Jacob Hawkes
12-17-2012, 06:54 AM
http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g338/JacobHawkes/ACEFACD3-F409-4810-9A60-2CE2120F1845-2597-0000016AC1C08F0C.jpg

road kill
12-17-2012, 07:18 AM
Incremental Secular Progressivism at it's finest.

They are coming for our weapons.
1 increment at a time.

Face it!!!!!!!

Dustin D
12-17-2012, 08:58 AM
I don't think he went on a Political Rant at all.

He addressed the Town and Country and made a statement saying that SOMETHING has to be done. We can't just do NOTHING and allow these Shooting Sprees to happen.

I completely agree with that, but my plan is VERY different than what his plan will probably be, of that I'm certain.

Here's EXACTLY what he said;


In the coming weeks, I’ll use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens, from law enforcement, to mental health professionals, to parents and educators, in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this, because what choice do we have?We can’t accept events like this as routine.---Obama

Nate_C
12-17-2012, 09:06 AM
OK so I am about to get killed on this board but some of the points they are making are fair about gun control. No guns didn't cause these events but they make them more deadly. On the flip side The problem is that progressives in this country want to take all the guns not just the extremely dangerous ones so many on the guns rights sides have to reject all gun legislation which is fair but what if we both got something.

1. Lets allow a total ban on some of the more dangerous guns that present the greatest danger. Some of these weapons like the AR and AK with high capacity clips and fairly easy to make fully automatic.
2. Ban high capacity clips say over 10 rounds
3. Prevent large gun purchases. When a 23 year old comes into a southern state wanting to buy 10 handguns at the same time he is up to no good. I heard of one law that you can only by 1 gun every 30 days. I would be OK with that for handguns.
4. Some sort of waiting period and restrictions on hand guns

But in return I would want a federal gun owners rights portion that reestablishes gun owners rights, and that would eliminate some of the over barring local laws. And some sort of ban on new legislation against guns.

Buzz
12-17-2012, 09:24 AM
Incremental Secular Progressivism at it's finest.

They are coming for our weapons.
1 increment at a time.

Face it!!!!!!!


I said everything I have to say on this topic in my first post about the shooting:


I have never believed that we would lose our gun rights in this country. This morning I have changed my mind. Maybe it's just that the pure evil and shock value of this event has knocked the sense out of me. But I now firmly believe that we will eventually lose our right to bear arms. The politicians will be blamed, but we can only blame the pure unadulterated evil of these assholes that keep killing innocent people.


I had a really melancholy feeling come over me this morning dropping my daughter off at school. Thinking about others who on friday had done the same, watching their kids walk through the door, seeing them alive for the last time. I'm not sure what to do. I know you guys hate Obama with every ounce of your being, but I agree completely with this statement that he made last night.


We can’t accept events like this as routine.---

BonMallari
12-17-2012, 09:40 AM
OK so I am about to get killed on this board but some of the points they are making are fair about gun control. No guns didn't cause these events but they make them more deadly. On the flip side The problem is that progressives in this country want to take all the guns not just the extremely dangerous ones so many on the guns rights sides have to reject all gun legislation which is fair but what if we both got something.

1. Lets allow a total ban on some of the more dangerous guns that present the greatest danger. Some of these weapons like the AR and AK with high capacity clips and fairly easy to make fully automatic. Once you start where does it stop, just because my Rem 1100 is semi automatic it puts it in the same category as a Saiga assault shotgun


2. Ban high capacity clips say over 10 rounds,,already in place
3. Prevent large gun purchases. When a 23 year old comes into a southern state wanting to buy 10 handguns at the same time he is up to no good. I heard of one law that you can only by 1 gun every 30 days. I would be OK with that for handguns.
4. Some sort of waiting period and restrictions on hand guns..some states have a "cooling off" period when purchasing a handgun

But in return I would want a federal gun owners rights portion that reestablishes gun owners rights, and that would eliminate some of the over barring local laws. And some sort of ban on new legislation against guns.

You already have it....ITS CALLED THE SECOND AMENDMENT


More legislation is not needed.....enforcing the ones already on the books might be a start...the guns used were obtained legally by his mother....of course after he killed her he was able to get them free will...Had his mother not been killed ,would we be holding her responsible for him getting a hold of her guns...its not like some salesperson at the local gun store sold the guy these weapons, or they werent purchased by the shooter at some gun show

Dustin D
12-17-2012, 09:50 AM
1. Lets allow a total ban on some of the more dangerous guns that present the greatest danger. Some of these weapons like the AR and AK with high capacity clips and fairly easy to make fully automatic.

2. Ban high capacity clips say over 10 rounds

3. Prevent large gun purchases. When a 23 year old comes into a southern state wanting to buy 10 handguns at the same time he is up to no good. I heard of one law that you can only by 1 gun every 30 days. I would be OK with that for handguns.

4. Some sort of waiting period and restrictions on hand guns



1 - There is no "FAIRLY easy way" to make Full Auto's out of an AR/AK. Plus NONE of these mass school shootings even occurred with Full Auto's.

2 - The whole High Cap Mag Ban is a farce. Reloading is simple.
Read Here > http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/10671-the-facts-of-life-on-high-capacity-magazines

3 - Care to site a single example of this? What you are saying has NEVER happen. Currently you can only buy 1 or 2 guns from an FFL per month in almost every state.

4 - Why? What do you think this will solve?

THINK REAL HARD about what you're saying. NOT A SINGLE suggestion you have made would have prevented this shooting. Do you realize that?

Yet EVERY suggestion you have made would indeed affect, once again *ONLY* Law Abiding Citizens. Imagine that!

Nate_C
12-17-2012, 10:00 AM
The second amendment doesn't do it. Amendments are general rights statements that guide secondary laws. For instance I think everyone is OK with the law that says that convicted felons cannot bear arms, that isn't in the 2nd amendment. All I was saying is that if I were to even think about passing additional gun laws I would want laws that better protect gun ownership as well.

Also the argument that we have a lot of gun laws in this country already and we just need to enforce them I think is disingenuous. There are so many easy work arounds to today's laws that all they do is annoy people who are trying to follow the law. I am just saying that rather than take a "take them out of my cold dead hands approach" we need to take a measured approach where we acknowledge that some guns present such as clear and present danger to our community that we are willing to eliminate them but at the same time take a stronger stand against progressives that want to take all guns.

Dustin D
12-17-2012, 10:05 AM
Still have the wrong idea IMO.

How many mass shootings have been conducted with an AR15 or AK47?

Now how many millions of these weapons are sitting in Gun Safe's across America collecting dust?

To consider banning the ownership of millions of AR's & AK's b/c 1 or 2 people have done something horrible with them is an absolutely ridiculous idiotic approach IMO.

road kill
12-17-2012, 10:10 AM
Still have the wrong idea IMO.

How many mass shootings have been conducted with an AR15 or AK47?

Now how many millions of these weapons are sitting in Gun Safe's across America collecting dust?

To consider banning the ownership of millions of AR's & AK's b/c 1 or 2 people have done something horrible with them is an absolutely ridiculous idiotic approach IMO.
How many are in the hands of Mexican drug cartels thanks to Obama and Fast & Furious??:cool:


Just askin'..........

Nate_C
12-17-2012, 10:13 AM
Still have the wrong idea IMO.

How many mass shootings have been conducted with an AR15 or AK47?

Now how many millions of these weapons are sitting in Gun Safe's across America collecting dust?

To consider banning the ownership of millions of AR's & AK's b/c 1 or 2 people have done something horrible with them is an absolutely ridiculous idiotic approach IMO.

I don't think it is just these two shootings, I would bet that they get used in crimes more often. Honestly I agree with you. Thought they present a significant danger they are miss used by such a small percentage that I don't think it is fair to ban them out right but I think we should look at alternatives.

Dustin D
12-17-2012, 10:36 AM
I don't think it is just these two shootings, I would bet that they get used in crimes more often. Honestly I agree with you. Thought they present a significant danger they are miss used by such a small percentage that I don't think it is fair to ban them out right but I think we should look at alternatives.

I think what most folks pass right over is this. How does the need for more Gun Laws have anything to do with this latest shooting? Think about it, everything the kid did was illegal, so how will more ink on paper solve anything?

This is why I think If Anti-Gun folks REALLY were serious about Gun Control, they'd stop pussy-footing around and confiscate all firearms. What else do they think will work? I think they should stop being punks about it and call for the ALL OUT BAN. Then once and for all we could put an end to this whole ridiculous back and forth.

There's an estimated 200,000,000 Firearms in the US. If a Whacko wants one, he'll get it and no matter what laws are made up, that fact will never change.

So I say the Anti's should get on with it and be REAL! Call for the All out Ban! Right Now! What are they waiting for!?

Buzz
12-17-2012, 10:43 AM
I saw this on Morning Joe this morning. It is EXACTLY what I was referring to in my OP in the school shooting thread.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc-morning_joe/#50222624

This video almost deserves it's own thread...

Franco
12-17-2012, 10:54 AM
No doubt the Dems will be coming after your Rights to defend yourself. They will use this tragedy to over-react and impose laws that they have always wanted to. Just remember that the same folks that want to pass further gun laws are the same groups that want to ban hunting!

Here is one Political Party that is looking after your Rights!

Libertarian Party: Halt the Massacre of Innocent Children by Ending Prohibition on Self-Defense in Schools
Families throughout the nation mourn the horrific deaths of 26 people, including 20 young children, killed Friday during a Newtown, Conn., mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

“It’s impossible to imagine the depths of despair and grief that the victims’ families are experiencing right now,” said Geoffrey J. Neale, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee. “Our hearts go out to every one of them.”

In the immediate aftermath of news surrounding the shootings, pundits and politicians called for new restrictions on firearm ownership, exactly the opposite of the approach needed to combat tragic gun violence in schools.

“We've created a 'gun-free zone,' a killing zone, for the sickest criminals on the face of the Earth," said R. Lee Wrights, vice-chair of the Libertarian Party. "We've given them an open killing field, and we've made the children of this country the victims."

Wrights pointed out that merely the knowledge that armed people will be present acts as a deterrent for would-be shooters.

"They're not going to walk into a police station, and why not? Because that's where the guns are," he said.

The Federal Gun Free Schools Zone Act prohibits carrying firearms on school grounds in most cases, effectively criminalizing the right to self-defense in places filled with the most vulnerable citizens. Without that federal prohibition, adults working at the school would have been free to defend themselves, very possibly saving the lives of many of the young children and adults who were slain in this horrific tragedy.

"We must stop blinding ourselves to the obvious: Most of these mass killings are happening at schools where self-defense is prohibited," said Carla Howell, executive director of the Libertarian Party. "Gun prohibition sets the stage for the slaughter of innocent children. We must repeal these anti-self-defense laws now to minimize the likelihood they will occur in the future and to the limit the damage done when they do."

Responsible gun owners can and do prevent mass shootings from occurring and escalating.



A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.
At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.


For several years after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, gun prohibitionists blocked pilots from carrying firearms. But after it became undeniable that guns are an essential line of defense against hijackers and other terrorists when the lives of innocent passengers are at stake, Congress finally passed legislation allowing it.

It's time to take the same approach with teachers, school administrators, and security guards, who should be allowed to carry the tools necessary to protect the students in their care. It's time to put an end to gun-free zones and make it much easier for responsible adults to arm, train, and protect themselves and the people they love from the violent criminals who seek to harm them.

"You can't depend on somebody else to take care of your own life for you," Wrights said. "It's too precious to put it into the hands of somebody else, particularly when the seconds count."

The Libertarian Party Platform on Self-Defense states: “The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.”

###

Marty Lee
12-17-2012, 11:02 AM
I saw this on Morning Joe this morning. It is EXACTLY what I was referring to in my OP in the school shooting thread.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc-morning_joe/#50222624

This video almost deserves it's own thread...

NOTHING more than GRANDSTANDING at its finest......NO ANSWERS.
the hard truths is there is no way to stop someone with this kind of evil in his heart. it started with Cain and will end with REVELATIONS.

Marvin S
12-17-2012, 11:07 AM
Responsible gun owners can and do prevent mass shootings from occurring and escalating.



A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.
At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.


For several years after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, gun prohibitionists blocked pilots from carrying firearms. But after it became undeniable that guns are an essential line of defense against hijackers and other terrorists when the lives of innocent passengers are at stake, Congress finally passed legislation allowing it.

It's time to take the same approach with teachers, school administrators, and security guards, who should be allowed to carry the tools necessary to protect the students in their care. It's time to put an end to gun-free zones and make it much easier for responsible adults to arm, train, and protect themselves and the people they love from the violent criminals who seek to harm them.

"You can't depend on somebody else to take care of your own life for you," Wrights said. "It's too precious to put it into the hands of somebody else, particularly when the seconds count. ##

Thanks - that message needs to go out to everyone - I don't need the help of someone else telling me what will work but a lot of UB's sheeple needs that help, badly.

Just a Libertarian by instinct ;) :cool: :) !!!

setterpete
12-17-2012, 11:11 AM
Responsible gun owners can and do prevent mass shootings from occurring and escalating.



A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.
At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.



###

Great information to argue the point for more responsible gun owners being allowed to carry. This just might be what this country needs to discourage criminals and whackos from entering the "killing zones" that contain our defenseless loved ones.

huntinman
12-17-2012, 12:59 PM
Interesting how rarely mass shootings happen at police stations, gun clubs or shooting ranges. All places with a ready supply of... you guessed it... guns.

MooseGooser
12-17-2012, 01:00 PM
The country that has the worse history oif gun violence in schools,, is Germany.. They also have a very restrictive gun ownership policy.

Do you folks remember the worse school shooting? It was in the Netherlands. 69 kids killed. Their Goverment also has MUCh,,MUCH strict controls on guns than we do here.

Everyones emotions are high right now,, Its the WORSE time to be considering strict gun laws ,that IMHO, will do NOTHING to keep this from happening again.

Buit then again,,,their are those in Government,, that will jump at the chance to take advantage of Emotion,, if it drives their agenda to completion..

JMHDAO.

Gooser

zeus3925
12-17-2012, 01:25 PM
I think the common thread is that these shooters are seeking suicide in a dramatic fashion. People carrying guns is not going to figure in their calculations. Neither does more gun regulation work. What is needed is a means of keeping firearms out of the way of mentally disturbed people and that won't be easy.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/world/world-newtown-shootings-gun-controls/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

MooseGooser
12-17-2012, 01:35 PM
Example of Gun control History in Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

They still, very recently, have horrendous gun violence in schools.

Gooser

Jason Glavich
12-17-2012, 01:40 PM
1 - There is no "FAIRLY easy way" to make Full Auto's out of an AR/AK. Plus NONE of these mass school shootings even occurred with Full Auto's.

2 - The whole High Cap Mag Ban is a farce. Reloading is simple.
Read Here > http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/10671-the-facts-of-life-on-high-capacity-magazines

3 - Care to site a single example of this? What you are saying has NEVER happen. Currently you can only buy 1 or 2 guns from an FFL per month in almost every state.

4 - Why? What do you think this will solve?

THINK REAL HARD about what you're saying. NOT A SINGLE suggestion you have made would have prevented this shooting. Do you realize that?

Yet EVERY suggestion you have made would indeed affect, once again *ONLY* Law Abiding Citizens. Imagine that!

In regards to number 3. In VA we used to able to buy only 1 Hangun every 30 days unless we had a ccw which removed that resriction because of the backgrounds checks that had been done. That law was repealed now anyone can buy multiple handguns in a month. We could always buy multiple long guns at one time.

And yes Relodaing is very easy and fast. Even with a revolver. And bump stocks are an interesting way to simulate auto weapons, not nearly as fast but fun to shoot.

zeus3925
12-17-2012, 01:54 PM
A common sense commentary:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/opinion/frum-leadership-newtown/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

HPL
12-17-2012, 02:05 PM
I saw this on Morning Joe this morning. It is EXACTLY what I was referring to in my OP in the school shooting thread.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc-morning_joe/#50222624

This video almost deserves it's own thread...

Everyone realize that that was just a bunch of platitudes? No mention AT ALL of ANY solution, just a lot of hand wringing. What an ass.

BonMallari
12-17-2012, 02:29 PM
I look at the gun debate a little differently...IMO its NOT a Republican vs Dem issue...yes there are Dems like Feinstein and Durbin leading the charge, but its a pro gun vs anti gun mentality out there....I watch Fox (which is not surprising to anyone) but almost to a person, I have not heard ONE on air personality come to the defense of those of us who are so staunch pro gun holders...I realize its an emotional subject right now, during church yesterday the pastor asked all in the congregation to stand and hold hands as we as a church prayed for the kids,teachers,and administrators who lost their lives, Dana and I both had tears in our eyes and were silent the rest of the sermon...

Anyhow IMO there are many people out there that have an anti gun view due to the fact that they have never been exposed to guns in a safe and sensible manner...I am still shocked at the number of FT and dog trainers that have never handled a shotgun, I wonder what they use when it comes to shooting pigeons in training...not saying that everyone needs to be a crack shot with a shotgun but if you want to train retrievers, how can you not at least be familiar with handling a shotgun....a handgun is a whole different thing, but then who has never used a blank gun?

Jswann
12-17-2012, 02:36 PM
This sums it all up:

On Friday in Connecticut, more than two dozen, mostly children, were gunned down in an act of evil.
I once read an account that young men killed on the beaches of Normandy, as they lay dying, called out for their mothers. I tear up at even the glancing thought of the cries of the children in Connecticut and dare not take the mental walk down that road.
Children cry out for their mommy and their daddy. Young men on the battlefield, as death comes over them, do the same. It is a natural instinct at life’s end for the young. Just the thought of the children crying out for their moms and dads as they died overwhelms the senses of those of us far removed from the tragedy. It is an instinct, though, that we should confront.
Instead, two days removed from the horror of Friday, we are beginning again the debate and confrontations about gun control. It is a debate worth having and, whether we want to or not, we will have it. Much, if any, of what will be proposed would not have stopped the massacre.
But though the proposals that will soon be most seriously considered would most likely not have prevented what happened, men and women of goodwill — and most are — will make the proposals because it lets them feel in control. People want to do something. People, acting corporately, want to legislate and regulate because it is, next to election of leaders, the most powerful act of a democracy.
The efforts, even if they are successful, will not stop this cycle of violence.
Discussions of gun control are easier to have than discussions about mental health. But they too are easier to have than those about the collapse of the American family. History and multiple studies show that the most stable foundation of a society is a two parent nuclear household with multiple children.
In the past year we have talked more and more about the rise of singles in this country, following the rise of single parents. Because much of the question of what it means to be single involves the discussion of choices, we cannot have a conversation about the nuclear family. The only conclusion that would benefit our society would be a conclusion that renders too many of the choices made by twenty and thirty somethings in our society today invalid.
Unless our culture shifts back toward recognizing the need for stable families with multiple children, the situation will only get worse. Coupled with that comes difficult conversations about equality and the roles young men in society must grow up to fit into. None of these horrific incidents have been committed by girls or women, but by disturbed young men — some, to be sure, in the very nuclear families most likely to help reduce these senseless acts. Nuclear families will not cure the problem and, in fact, mass incidents like this have declined over time though the 6 worst school shootings have been in the past decade. But we look at the tragedy in Connecticut and ignore the daily killings and life destroying acts across the nation. We focus on Connecticut, but not inner-cities or impoverished communities of broken homes.
When pointing out that two parent households of multiple children provide the greatest stability in a society, many deny the fact. Many demand data or more studies then try to discredit the studies. It says more about the denial of responsibility for the choices the deniers have made than it does about the studies or the facts. This is, however, why we will not change. But as government tries to spread its caring hands even further and replace or supplement the need for family, no child will ever in terror cry out for Uncle Sam, just for mom or dad.
Turning its back on the nuclear family, our society has concurrently turned its back on discussing evil. Evil, like God, is mythology to many in our country even when confronted with it at the barrel of a gun.
We have become accustomed in our vernacular to treat evil as the opposite of good or the opposite of God. Evil is not just a word and not the opposite of good or God, but the absence of God taking on a life of its own. The act in Connecticut may have been committed by a mentally disturbed individual, but the act was evil. The person, at the time committing the act, was evil.
God and good exist. The devil and evil do as well — the incarnation of the absolute void left in the absence of God.
Colossians 1:15 states, ‘[Christ] is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” As our society drifts further and further from Christ, our society holds itself together less and less. The rise of secularism coincides with the decline of family and the rise of societal chaos.
In our society, it is impolite to say this. Many who reject this mock Christians. They wonder why God or Jesus were not in that school room protecting those children. Liberal gay-rights activist Dan Savage on Friday was openly ridiculing Christians and mocking God. Liberal pundits were retweeting him.
They choose not to understand. They have chosen the very society that generates the heinous act we saw on Friday — a society replacing ourselves and our standards with those of God. It is a society St. Paul described quite accurately in Romans 1.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. . . . They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator . . . . Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.
Romans 1:21, 25, 28-31
On Friday in Connecticut, an evil creature entered a classroom and gunned down children in our ever increasing Romans 1 society.
At this Christmas season we should remember the part of the Christmas story we often do not dwell on. Two thousand years ago, King Herod sent his soldiers to Bethlehem where they slaughtered all the boys age 2 and under. The coming of the Risen Lord was answered by this world with the loss of the innocents.
The world is full of sin. It is easy for the non-Christian to look at what happened and rationalize away that the person was mentally ill, we need gun control, etc. It is harder, especially at this time of year, for those who do believe in God to find comfort in him instead of demanding “why?” But God does not spare us the effects of sin in the world, nor does he spare the little children.
But we know by faith that “Jesus wept.” He weeps now. He welcomes home the little children and calls for us to persevere and, if we will, to turn back toward him and bring our society with us. But our society must be prepared to have larger conversations than whether or not we should regulate guns or bullets.
Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
“God is not dead, nor doth He sleep;
The Wrong shall fail,
The Right prevail,
With peace on earth, good-will to men.”


Written by Erick Erickson

road kill
12-17-2012, 02:44 PM
To me, a comprehensive Gun/Hunter safety course taught in middle school would address some of the issues.

I mean if it "saved 1 childs life" it would be beneficial, correct??

Some of the strongest gun legislation in the USA is in Chicago, IL.
Anyone got any stats or graphs on firearm related deaths there?

Aren't we always being told by the incremental secular progressives that education is the key to a better society?
If firearms are a part of society, then people should be educated about them.

The disinformation being spewed by the likes of Schulz and Maddow is insane.

Again, I ask, when did a .223 caliber become "Hi-Powered?"

If I wanted hi-powered rifle I'm thinking a BAR or a .300 Weatherby.:cool:

I gauruntee you, the ISP will get something out of this in their quest to disarm the citizenry!!

We will never get it back.

Increment by increment, they keep chipping away.
The fight is never over................

Buzz
12-17-2012, 02:55 PM
Everyone realize that that was just a bunch of platitudes? No mention AT ALL of ANY solution, just a lot of hand wringing. What an ass.

What I heard was death of the influence of the gun lobby, even with a conservative libertarian like Scarborough. I know that I'm about to hear that Scarborough isn't a conservative, but I realize that it takes a real nut case to be considered conservative these days.

This is exactly what I was predicting in my post on Friday...

Quackwacker
12-17-2012, 03:13 PM
This makes a lot of sense......................

http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Lt-Col-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/

cotts135
12-17-2012, 03:15 PM
OK so I am about to get killed on this board but some of the points they are making are fair about gun control. No guns didn't cause these events but they make them more deadly. On the flip side The problem is that progressives in this country want to take all the guns not just the extremely dangerous ones so many on the guns rights sides have to reject all gun legislation which is fair but what if we both got something.

1. Lets allow a total ban on some of the more dangerous guns that present the greatest danger. Some of these weapons like the AR and AK with high capacity clips and fairly easy to make fully automatic.
2. Ban high capacity clips say over 10 rounds
3. Prevent large gun purchases. When a 23 year old comes into a southern state wanting to buy 10 handguns at the same time he is up to no good. I heard of one law that you can only by 1 gun every 30 days. I would be OK with that for handguns.
4. Some sort of waiting period and restrictions on hand guns

But in return I would want a federal gun owners rights portion that reestablishes gun owners rights, and that would eliminate some of the over barring local laws. And some sort of ban on new legislation against guns.

I agree with everything you said. I would add though that there needs to be strong effort in some way to keep guns from people who shouldn't have them. This might involve some very difficult privacy issues such as access to medical records.
The big thing is that something gets worked out that prevents these senseless killings in the future. And the time to talk about it is now.

jacduck
12-17-2012, 03:28 PM
I have a new thought for me on gun control. Anyone like Mayor gloomburger who has body guards and police escorts should demand they be unarmed immediately to point the way for me not needing self protection at home or in the streets of NY or Boston. Outlaw bodyguards carrying for celebrities and political persons like Rosie O D who has armed guards for her children. If I can't have a gun or even many guns to hell with them. Oh yeah make it against the law for criminals to use guns.

dixidawg
12-17-2012, 03:36 PM
1. Lets allow a total ban on some of the more dangerous guns that present the greatest danger. Some of these weapons like the AR and AK with high capacity clips and fairly easy to make fully automatic.
2. Ban high capacity clips say over 10 rounds
3. Prevent large gun purchases. When a 23 year old comes into a southern state wanting to buy 10 handguns at the same time he is up to no good. I heard of one law that you can only by 1 gun every 30 days. I would be OK with that for handguns.
4. Some sort of waiting period and restrictions on hand guns

But in return I would want a federal gun owners rights portion that reestablishes gun owners rights, and that would eliminate some of the over barring local laws. And some sort of ban on new legislation against guns.

If #1 is a primary motivator, PLEASE watch this somewhat older video. Some of it may be too basic, but please watch it to the end where the ATF and police officers are testifying.


They are no different than any semiauto that accepts mags. They are as easy as any other semi auto to make full auto.

And the testimony says there are NONE that they have came across that have been made full auto.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti5GmI8

PalouseDogs
12-17-2012, 03:41 PM
It's a sweeping and incorrect generalization to say that advocates of gun legislation are anti-hunting. I am a big proponent of hunting AND in favor of reasonable legislation. There have been several news reports about the friction (before the school shooting) between some of the hunters in the Newtown and the assault weapons crowd that many people in Newtown felt were taking over the countryside.

Here in Washington State, bird hunters can't use a shotgun that holds more than 3 rounds. Why do the shooters of these assault weapons need clips that hold 30 rounds?

The NRA has really pushed the "camel's nose under the tent argument", i.e., that ANY regulation will lead to a complete ban on guns. By that reasoning, traffic laws and license requirements would lead to a ban on driving cars. Similarly, the NRA argues that, if there are guns laws, only law-abiding citizens wil obey them. There are plenty of people that drive without a license. Does that mean that driver's licenses are worthless and we should forget about them?

Neither pro-gun or anti-gun. Pro-reason, regards.

dixidawg
12-17-2012, 04:06 PM
And it is a sweeping generalization to say the 2nd amendment has anything to do with hunting.

And there are more traffic deaths than gun related deaths. Why do those drvers need cars that can go 100mph?

And ALL of the 23,000 laws on the books thus far has been "reasonable" legislation. Yet the problem still exists. What "reasonable" things would you have in the 23,001st law that would have made a difference in Connecticut?

Dustin D
12-17-2012, 04:08 PM
School Shootings happen b/c the Government gets in the way(via reasonable legislation) of Responsible Adults protecting their own.

PMG 131
12-17-2012, 06:11 PM
I just love all the knee jerk reaction to this tragic event. The exact same day 22 children were seriously injured by a knife wielding man in China. Lets ban all knives. People intent on doing harm will do harm, the tools will just change.

Marvin S
12-17-2012, 06:48 PM
It's a sweeping and incorrect generalization to say that advocates of gun legislation are anti-hunting. I am a big proponent of hunting AND in favor of reasonable legislation. There have been several news reports about the friction (before the school shooting) between some of the hunters in the Newtown and the assault weapons crowd that many people in Newtown felt were taking over the countryside.

1st may I say - your response doesn't surprise me, but where is reasonable in this discussion? The goal is to prevent these events from occurring, nothing else. Knowing that there may be an unknown someone armed on the grounds would be a very likely deterrent. When I was a young man folks drove around with their weapon of choice fully visible. & I never heard about anyone killing someone else.


Here in Washington State, bird hunters can't use a shotgun that holds more than 3 rounds. Why do the shooters of these assault weapons need clips that hold 30 rounds?

The reason for that was to discourage game hogs - in all my years hunting I have encountered one warden & had to stop him to strike up a conversation -

But there are a lot of laws in this state that the scofflaws ignore. You pay about 20% more for your insurance as the uninsured continue to drive & have accidents. But even though they are uninsured (read breaking the law), they still have full access to the courts to address any grievance they may have against you & your insurance, & many times win. AT your cost ;-).

We are exposed regularly to the police brutality that exists on this side by what passes for MSM - in fact both the Seattle police & the King County Sheriffs are under federal oversight for Police brutality, & from what I have observed, justifiably so.

There's more but I will not belabor the point!


The NRA has really pushed the "camel's nose under the tent argument", i.e., that ANY regulation will lead to a complete ban on guns. By that reasoning, traffic laws and license requirements would lead to a ban on driving cars. Similarly, the NRA argues that, if there are guns laws, only law-abiding citizens wil obey them. There are plenty of people that drive without a license. Does that mean that driver's licenses are worthless and we should forget about them?

Neither pro-gun or anti-gun. Pro-reason, regards.

Feinstein is from the SF area & was involved in the Harvey Milk issue, Durbin from IL, have you looked at the crime statistics from IL recently & I'm just talking about the violent crime, like losing your life. Do you honestly believe they do not have an agenda & will look out for the best interests of the country?

Your drivers license analogy says it all - reasonable people obey reasonable laws - the folks in these scenario's do not understand reasonable & never will - hence the very reasonable argument that their should be "NO GUN FREE ZONES" , were that the case, more people would be alive today, IMO.

zeus3925
12-17-2012, 06:57 PM
Sorry Marvin, but the last thing I wantto see is firearms in schools carried by ad hoc gun toters. If there is to be an armed presence in a school building then it should be a licensed peace officer with specialized training in handling weapons in that environment. But, that is going to cost you some tax money.

dback
12-17-2012, 07:11 PM
But, that is going to cost you some tax money.

One I don't mind paying.....there are lots of programs we could/should end (not school related) that would off set costs. Here we have a "Dare" program in the schools.....can't say I know exactly how it works but I do know one of the officers. He is on campus much of the time......carries, and best of all, knows most if not all the students......strangers and just plain strange students. He interacts with students all day long, has quite a following on campus.

HPL
12-17-2012, 09:47 PM
Sorry Marvin, but the last thing I wantto see is firearms in schools carried by ad hoc gun toters. If there is to be an armed presence in a school building then it should be a licensed peace officer with specialized training in handling weapons in that environment. But, that is going to cost you some tax money.

So, train and deputize some of the folks who are already on the payroll, give them a little incentive, and voila!!

I was videotaping a school Christmas program tonight and I have to say that when I got in there with what I wouldn't previously have thought of as a bunch of sitting ducks, I was kinda hoping that a couple of the members of the audience were exercising their right to bear arms.