Is the right to bear arms outdated.

Stupid man, shoots young boy in own home when he mistook the youngster for a squirrel as he played in an old box left over from Moms' new dresser. Our film at 11.30 asks, "Should young boys be banned, or should warning signs be placed upon all boxes, warning that movement from within may not be caused by squirrels."

You cannot legislate against the stupid. There will always be stupid, you just penalise those who are not.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Scissors need to be banned. Can rocks and paper be far behind?

Homeland Security has advice for confronting mass murders: scissors - NYPOST.com


"The video, titled “Options for Consideration,” also advises that people who get caught in an “active shooter” situation should run away, hide under a desk or take cover out of the line of fire."

What a bunch of lame garbage. Haven't the bureaucrats @ Home Sec heard the old axiom "Never bring a knife to a gun fight"? By the time someone with scissors got close enough to a gunman to USE those scissors, he'd be too full of holes to use 'em.

'What the hey' regarding that "hiding under a desk" advice??? Has anybody at Home Sec looked at most desks in use today? 'May as well just curl up into a ball on the floor right where you are for all the good a desk would do you. And how is one who's, say, sitting a classroom supposed to "run away" when a gunman is standing in the only doorway??? Oh, I know - jump out a window...uuuuh, but, not only do the windows not open - you're on the THIRD FLOOR.

Unbelievable...

As far as the 'average-guy-in-the-street' is concerned, the only truly e-f-f-e-c-t-i-v-e defense against a gun is another gun. Period. End of story. 99.9999999% of us are not Bruce Lee. And, real world, a Bruce Lee-type would likely end up just as dead as we would were he to face a gunman firing from a distance of 10 feet or more. The laws of probability make that an inarguable fact.

The above video is just as ridiculous as the "duck and cover" nuke bomb 'drill' films of the '50s. Probably even more so.

And we're PAYING the people who come up with crap like that????????
 
It has to get wasted, er spent, or they don't get it again next fiscal year. Are you one of those people who wants to defund the government?

I want government spending reform...think of the billions wasted to keep the budget from being cut....

Under current broken system, basically if they are budgeted $1,000,000 but they only used $900,000, they have to waste the extra $100,000 or most likely the next year, they only get $900,000. So the jackasess waste the $100,000 and then argue they again need $1mm Plus inflation.


Here's my idea.. if in year 1, goobers get budgeted $1,000,000 and they only use $900,000, the the following would happen.

1. The remaining $100,000 gets set aside in an escrow account that can not be raided for another department/ project/program.

2. The following year (yr 2), their budget (after due diligence and reevaluation) gets adjusted to $922,500. The new budget is still 2.5% more than the actually used the year before. If something comes up where they need extra funding they can tap into their reserves, with the stipulation that it must be a legitimate expense and not wasteful.

3. The third year, the budget would again be reevaluated. And based on what was actually budgeted and spent on the previous year (including any reserve withdrawals), a budget would be set. So say they spent $922,500 plus $10,000, then at the most, they could be budgeted $955,823 (2.5% increase).

4 Year four, same process as before, any surplus goes into their reserve account. And following year budget is reduced appropriately.


Based on this simple idea, I just saved the tax payers at least $77,500 in year two and $44,188 in year three, just by cutting out purposely spent waste. That's $121,688 in just 2 years after implementing the change.

So yes, the government spending could get cut and at the same time REAL programs wouldn't be touched. Do this across the board and tax's could actually be cut, putting money back into our pockets. And a large portion would be spent or invested, which would do wonders for the economy. And with more people working and paying taxes, the tax revenue would increase which could be used to pay down the deficit.
 
A liberal friend, who is most likely WORLDS to the left of Jim Craik, made an striking realization the other day. She said that "I think we just have to face it that guns are never going to be banned..."
 

Keith

Moderator
To be fair, in Jim's unbending delivery and somewhat ruthless self belief, I think EVERYONE is to the left of him politically speaking.
 

Keith

Moderator
I have been a sufferer of PTSD since being involved (and injured) in a shooting 10 years ago so I do know a thing or two about rehab. However, this seems a strange story..

In hindsight, was this such a good idea considering how he got PTSD in the first place?

Is this the equivalent of "getting back in the saddle?"

I would say yes, providing there was no mental impairment... but, it all went tits up because there obviously WAS mental impairment.

What say the panel?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/us/chris-kyle-american-sniper-author-reported-killed.html?_r=0
 

Jim Rosenthal

Supporter
Well, we kind of all agree, the mentally ill shouldn't have guns. I guess if you give a firearm to a nut case, it's open season on everyone within a few hundred yards. It's a shame; Kyle was a good sailor and by all accounts a very decent fellow.
 
Tragic!
I'd like to know what anti-depressant drugs that nut was on. PTSD is real folks,
formerly, simply called battle fatigue. Many deal with it better than others.
 
Worth a look if you have not seen this on FOX.

How should Congress address gun violence? | Fox News Video

Interesting; our esteemed pres with a shotgun - profound respect for hunting, etc. The Second Amendment did not protect our rights so we could shoot skeet, or hunt quail, it's protecting our rights so we are able to defend ourselves against tyranny and oppression; protection against our government and its officers.

Just wondering; who paid for those kids from Connecticut to appear in the bowl game? Not an appropriate appearance IMHO - have they not gotten enough mileage out of those kids yet? Leave them alone - and frankly I wear thin on that subject - now get on with the quantitative debate.
 
Just wondering; who paid for those kids from Connecticut to appear in the bowl game? Not an appropriate appearance IMHO - have they not gotten enough mileage out of those kids yet? Leave them alone - and frankly I wear thin on that subject - now get on with the quantitative debate.

I am sure the children from Newtown were invited to perform and it must have been their decision to attend.

What do you mean who paid for it? Do you think it was some kind of anti-gun statement?

Those kids were all robbed of having a normal childhood. How does PTSD affect a 10 yr old? I guess we are going to find out over and over again.

It is too bad a jack ass like Wayne Lapierre does not give a shit. He just wants to stay in the good graces of the gun manufacturers. Should an organization that benefits from the sale of guns be involved in the conversation at all? Of course the answer is more guns will solve the problem if you ask them. There are plenty of guns out there already and it doesn't seem to be helping any.

So we have a mentally ill shooter wearing body armor and equipped with hundreds of rounds of ammunition........ The best solution is to rely on another armed civilian to curb the bloodshed? I would rather prevent the mentally ill from obtaining the weapons, the ammunition, and the body armor in the first place. Even if we have to have background checks for swiss arm knives....... who cares? Its about restricting access and not about taking away access to guns entirely. I can't imagine why any gun owner or pro gun organization would oppose steps to protect their own children.

I am trying to understand the passionate responses from gun owners on this issue. I can see wanting to protect your hobby and your personal freedoms, but the inability to compromise at all is very surprising. Many of the arguments do not even make sense. Guns are certainly not going to save us from tyranny in 2013. If you are worried about protecting yourself and your family a gun may not be your best option. If your gun is not in hand and ready to fire it is useless. If you keep it loaded and accessible, then statistics show it is more of a hazard than anything else.
 
“I am sure the children from Newtown were invited to perform and it must have been their decision to attend.

Yeah, the kids woke up one morning and said – “Hey, I think I’d like to attend the Super Bowl”……. maybe sing a little bit...... awe, how cute.

What do you mean who paid for it? Do you think it was some kind of anti-gun statement?

Absolutely – HELL YES it was a political, anti-gun statement!!

Those kids were all robbed of having a normal childhood. How does PTSD affect a 10 yr old? I guess we are going to find out over and over again.

BULLSHIT – They are normal, what happened at school was unusual, statistically improbable, but not necessarily “abnormal” in our society today. Now, attending and performing at a Super Bowl – that is NOT NORMAL!! We (parents, media, social services, teachers, etc.) are the ones making their childhood abnormal.

It is too bad a jack ass like Wayne Lapierre does not give a shit. He just wants to stay in the good graces of the gun manufacturers. Should an organization that benefits from the sale of guns be involved in the conversation at all? Of course the answer is more guns will solve the problem if you ask them. There are plenty of guns out there already and it doesn't seem to be helping any.

That’s like saying the media should not be involved in a conversation about the First Amendment – makes no sense?

So we have a mentally ill shooter wearing body armor and equipped with hundreds of rounds of ammunition........ The best solution is to rely on another armed civilian to curb the bloodshed? I would rather prevent the mentally ill from obtaining the weapons, the ammunition, and the body armor in the first place. Even if we have to have background checks for swiss arm knives....... who cares? Its about restricting access and not about taking away access to guns entirely. I can't imagine why any gun owner or pro gun organization would oppose steps to protect their own children.

Using “children” is a lame way to promote a cause, unless the cause is playground equipment! Having them at the football game or in the White House is simply child abuse. We should be making arguments based on statistical data, proof, and facts. Using your "heart" to make decisions only gets you into trouble and does not allow you to see clearly.

I am trying to understand the passionate responses from gun owners on this issue. I can see wanting to protect your hobby and your personal freedoms, but the inability to compromise at all is very surprising. Many of the arguments do not even make sense. Guns are certainly not going to save us from tyranny in 2013. If you are worried about protecting yourself and your family a gun may not be your best option. If your gun is not in hand and ready to fire it is useless. If you keep it loaded and accessible, then statistics show it is more of a hazard than anything else.”

2013? Whoa there, maybe – maybe not. I hope the hell it never comes to that, but if it does, I want the tyrants to have to at least think twice about what they are doing and know there will be resistance. “Statistically”, I am 100% safe on the loaded and accessible side. Your statistic is skewed at best. Where is the statistic for how many “carries” there have been with no incident? What is the comparison?
I agree with you – background checks, mental health follow-up, and limits to capacity (magazines). But, irrational banning of specific or general types of weapons is simply that – irrational. And, if that is the way my government thinks, we are all in trouble.
So, thank you for your balanced response.
 
Back
Top