[News] Several killed in Connecticut Elementary School Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
One of the biggest issues with adding gun control laws is that we aren't even consistantly enforcing the ones we have now.
 
It depends on what you mean by "stronger". Some enforcement and requirements are pretty basic on a common sense scale. Extended clips are just toys meant to give gun nuts a hard on. Requiring training for gun permits. Restricting certain diagnosis of the mentally ill from legally owning or purchasing a firearm. It's not as if even the staunchest gun control douche is saying there should be no guns.

That's all we're going to hear, though for the next few months until the debt ceiling crap hits the fan.
 
As a big gun nut myself, the main things I would be willing to concede is universal background checks (Gunshow/private sells) if it excludes transfers within family and the mental health thing Krisken was saying. Aside from that, I'm not really willing to concede more.
 
The reasoning being used (not that I necessarily agree with it being the best argument) is that it would be an invasion of privacy.
 
Err.. I misspoke on the above, I Agree with the inclusion of adding additional mental health problems to the list of people not being able to purchase firearms and universal background checks, but do not agree with background checks when the transfer is between family members.
 
And that's what really bothers me about the whole debate... it's not really a debate. Most people agree with these things as being reasonable and minimally intrusive to gun ownership in general. It's the vocal fuckwits to put out the bumper sticker slogans backed by NRA money or the couple loud liberal idiots who push for 'da banning of guns herp derp' that are the ones focused on.

And until we stop letting our congressmen make 'safe districts' and drawing the political map, it will never change. The screaming from both sides makes them all money.
 
Apparently an American TV adaption of Battle Royale was canned following these events. This is literally the third time this has happened to Battle Royale

- Translated American release was canned because of school shootings (I wanna say Columbine?)
- The Virgina Tech shootings killed the chance at a Hollywood remake of the movie.

It's really fucking depressing how there's always a shooting to derail this kind of thing... that shootings have become so common that it can destroy an ENTIRE FRANCHISE.
 
Apparently an American TV adaption of Battle Royale was canned following these events. This is literally the third time this has happened to Battle Royale

- Translated American release was canned because of school shootings (I wanna say Columbine?)
- The Virgina Tech shootings killed the chance at a Hollywood remake of the movie.

It's really fucking depressing how there's always a shooting to derail this kind of thing... that shootings have become so common that it can destroy an ENTIRE FRANCHISE.
So stop trying to make an American Battle Royale, and there will be less school shootings. Cause and effect, right? ;-)
 

GasBandit

Staff member
The DC said:
The same people who crowed about the Alex Jones (Piers Morgan) interview are conspicuously silent about this one. It’s only news when the Constitution is defended by a fat yelly guy from Texas who thinks Bush orchestrated 9/11 with aliens from Dimension X. The calm, soft-spoken Harvard Law School grad with the yarmulke is a lot tougher to demonize.

Bonus -
Morgan recoiled when Shapiro’s pocket copy of the Constitution came out, deriding it as ‘your little book.’ I believe Count Dracula once had a similar conversation with Abraham van Helsing.
 
I find it hilarious when people use the Constitution as a -end all, be all- of an argument. It's nearly irrelevant in today's world and even the most basic ideas of are hard to take as 100% unbreakable truths since it was established.

Seriously, people who think if they have guns they can fight against a -tyrannical government- makes me laugh.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I find it hilarious when people use the Constitution as a -end all, be all- of an argument. It's nearly irrelevant in today's world and even the most basic ideas of are hard to take as 100% unbreakable truths since it was established.
Well, that's where you and I differ, I guess - to me, the constitution is the road map that got us to being hegemon.

Seriously, people who think if they have guns they can fight against a -tyrannical government- makes me laugh.
Yeah, because people with gun are totally not overthrowing tyrannical governments and/or defying the world's only superpower until they lose their stomach and their will evaporates. Certainly that's never happened even once in the last 10 years, definitely not.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
remind me which superpower with drones and nukes was overthrown by its people
Remind me which two resistance/terrorist organization outlasted a superpower with drones and nukes until they packed up and went home, ceding the territory back to the eternal darkness of the hardline islamist sharia nightmare?
 
They also did it with IEDs, RPGs, cellphones, laptops they used to hack drones, and the kind of training that comes decades of war (at least in Afghanistan) and the support of other foreign powers (including the superpower in question).

A fat guy with an AR-15 is really not the same thing.
 
I'm surprised GasBandit is naive enough to think that a armed civilian populace would be enough to ovethrow one of the biggest and heavily armed military of the world.
 
It could be enough. Because not many people want to shoot their own citizens. Like how the Chinese had to go out to the provinces to find soldiers willing to shoot the protesters at Tienanmen Square. Even the Syrians are having trouble finding soldiers to keep killing armed civilians.
 
It could be enough. Because not many people want to shoot their own citizens. Like how the Chinese had to go out to the provinces to find soldiers willing to shoot the protesters at Tienanmen Square. Even the Syrians are having trouble finding soldiers to keep killing armed civilians.
A government that isn't willing to shoot it's unarmed civilians? How Tyrannical! :rofl:
 

GasBandit

Staff member
They also did it with IEDs, RPGs, cellphones, laptops they used to hack drones, and the kind of training that comes decades of war (at least in Afghanistan) and the support of other foreign powers (including the superpower in question).

A fat guy with an AR-15 is really not the same thing.
But you know what's really REALLY not the same thing? A fat guy with nothing but harsh words.

I'm surprised GasBandit is naive enough to think that a armed civilian populace would be enough to ovethrow one of the biggest and heavily armed military of the world.
It doesn't have to overthrow it, it just has to be extremely difficult to oppress.

It could be enough. Because not many people want to shoot their own citizens. Like how the Chinese had to go out to the provinces to find soldiers willing to shoot the protesters at Tienanmen Square. Even the Syrians are having trouble finding soldiers to keep killing armed civilians.
Careful, if you even sound slightly like you're taking my side, the smarm brigade will start peppering you with fallacies untill you're completely phallused.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top