There might not have been any terrorist camps in Afghanistan if we had
not built them. My attitude is Don't start nuthin won't be nothin.
The best way to stop terrorism is to stop funding it.
>> and certainly
>> no laws can prevent all bad things to happen.
>
> Or from bad people doing bad things.
>
What about when good people do bad things?
>> You sound like a Tea
>> Partier who says that the Assault Weapons Ban was a plot by the UN to
>> disarm the US to prepare to take it over.
>
> Not the UN, liberals.
Same difference to the Tea Party. New World Order.
>
>>> prevent all bad things from happening. You expect government to be able to
>>> provide a cocoon where you can feel cozy and safe, and not have your world
>>> disturbed by bad events.
>>
>> I know it may be old-fashioned, but I happen to believe that WE create
>> governments to protect and serve us.
>
> And the founding fathers felt the people should be armed in case
> those expectations weren`t realized.
Something like that. But don't actually study it.
You must like the movie Red Dawn. You really think that a few yahoos
with AR-15 are going to keep the Russians from nuking us into dust. Is
that called wishful think or just delusions of grandeur?
>
>>> Lets say a nutjob drives through a schoolyard with an SUV mowing down
>>> children, do we enact legislation against cars, surround all schoolyards
>>
>> What is the name of that trick? Reductio ad Absurdum. If you could stop
>> your reliance on illogic we might get somewhere.
>
> What is absurd is thinking those guns themselves caused this havoc.
> You want to focus on inanimate objects, and I`m focusing on the true
> cause, nutjobs.
>
That is the NRA playbook. Protect guns and blame it on mental illness.
That is what mentally ill people do, blame their problems on others and
never take any responsibility for their own actions.
>>> with concrete barriers, make it so cars won`t start unless the driver pass
>>> a psychological test given by the car`s onboard computer ("Are you
>>> currently hearing voices?"). These nutjobs are always going to be with us,
>>> sometimes they kill popular Presidents or entertainers, sometimes they
>>> throw acid in someones face, sometimes they make bombs to kill people
>>
>> Of course they will always be with us. But we don't have to arm them
>> with nuclear weapons so that they can kill more people.
>
> Reductio ad absurdum.
Intended to be. But in addition, Satire and Ridicule.
>
>> On the same day
>> as the attack in Sandy Hook there was an attack by a madman in China. He
>> attacked 22 schoolchild. How many was he able to kill? None.
>
> What prevented him from inflicting fatal wounds?
>
> Likely he was able to kill many of them, with the proper knife and
> technique. This school shooter shot his victims multiple times, he was
> obviously trying to kill.
>
Duh! Maybe you don't remember any other famous shootings. Study the
shooting of Gabby Giffords. The same type of nut was able to kill
several people, but he was not able to kill dozens? Why? Because he had
to stop to reload and people had a chance to stop him. Someone came to
the shooting late and he was armed with a gun, but did not fire. He
could have missed and hit innocent people. Cops often miss and hit
innocent people.
So you really think that a deranged man with a knife can kill as many
people as a deranged man with an AR-15 using a large capacity magazine?
Has Diane Feinstein introduced a bill to ban kitchen knives?
>> Because he
>> was only armed with a knife, not a machine gun.
>
> It`s possible to shoot 22 people with a machine gun and have them all
> survive. It`s possible to stab 22 people with a knife and have them
> all die.
>
Oh yeah, show me. Prove it.
>> And people were able to
>> stop him and subdue him.
>
> After stabbing 22. A lot of these shooters are subdued eventually.
>
If they had to stop and reload because they were not using high capacity
magazines. No one had a chance to stop the rightwing nut in Norway.
>> Get it? Of course not. No assault rifle.
>
> Like China would allow it`s people the freedom to own firearms.
>
One of the first freedoms we have is Life. Not to murder.
>>> because they have a problem with technology or government and sometimes
>>> they shoot up schools. That whackjob with the orange hair that shot up the
>>> movie theater had his apartment all booby trapped, you think he lacks the
>>> creativity to be a threat to society if he sets his twisted mind to it?
>>
>> How much creativity does it take to steal your mother's assault rifle
>> and go kill children?
>
> Not much. Or to burn a whole dorm down with everybody inside instead
> of booby trapping one room. Or steal his mothers car and plow it
> through a schoolyard.
>
>>>> The NRA and the Republicans are so powerful that nothing will be done
>>>> until there are 2,500 victims in one incident.
>>
>>> The founding fathers wanted an armed populace to safeguard against
>>> government oppression of the people. Since the Democrats are the ones most
>>> gun-grabby they must be the ones the founding fathers were worried about.
>>
>> Wrong. The model was the Minutemen. The enemy was the British Empire.
>> Oppression from above.
>
> Nonsense, you haven`t read their writings. It was to protect from
> within as much as without.
>
Within was the situation during the revolution. We were a British colony
and the people revolted and wanted their freedom. We did not sail over
to England and try to burn down the palace.
>>>> Remember as the NRA says, "Nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill
>>>> people."
>>
>>> That much is true. Pretty harmless until someone decides to use
>>> them. Like when Iran gets one.
>>
>> But didn't you guys claim that Iraq already had one?
>
> Who claimed Iraq had nukes?
>
YOU GUYS. The rightwing. Bush and Cheney.
>> And you don't seem
>> to mind that Pakistan has them and even Israel.
>
> I do.
>
>> The moment we discover
>> the trillions of barrels of oil under the ice in Iceland we will claim
>> that they have a nuclear bomb and invade them.
>
> They`d be easy to take too, I think their defense consists of
> flinging sheep with catapults.
>
>>>> Coincidentally, at the same time there was a madman using a knife to
>>>> attack 22 children at a school in China. No children died. Nuff said.
>>
>>> No, not "nuff said". That person`s sickness might not have required
>>> a body count.
>>
>> You still don't get it. He attacked the same number of kids.
>
> No, they both wounded the same number of victims. Likely they were
> both attacking all the kids they could.
>
No kids were only wounded in Sandy Hook. They were killed.
In China no kids were killed. The only difference - the type of weapon
used. And you still don't get it. You still continue to defend the NRA.
>> 22 versus
>> 22. What was the only difference in the outcome? The type of weapon used.
>
> You only want to focus on the choice of weapons, you assume they had
> identical intent. What prevented the China nutjob from inflicting
> fatal wounds with his knife? What if he use a meat cleaver or machete,
> could he have killed as many? Maybe more since he would be harder to
> subdue.
>
Meat cleavers are not banned in China. You think his success rate would
have been 100% if he had used a meat cleaver? I don't even know what the
technical term is for that kind of thinking.