Piers Morgan losing it again

[Maverick74]

It turns out we didn't need a law to stop Holmes, we just needed his psychiatrist to do his job!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/2...-suspect-laid-out-plans-in-package-mailed-to/

 

[achilles28]

Quote from Brass:

Really? Well the military has a hell of a lot more in its arsenal. Does that entitle you to the same? If I cry you a river, will you promise to go drown in it?

Another pathetic argument. How many times do you libs throw that red herring out? The Founders intended guns. That was the weapon of the day, that's what they meant, and that's what the Constitution says. Not nukes. Not chemical weapons. Not cluster bombs. Comprehende? Now go cry us that river, nancyboy.

 

[Brass]

Quote from achilles28:

Another pathetic argument. How many times do you libs throw that red herring out? The Founders intended guns. That was the weapon of the day, that's what they meant, and that's what the Constitution says. Not nukes. Not chemical weapons. Not cluster bombs. Comprehende? Now go cry us that river, nancyboy.

Really? You mean they didn't envision nukes, chemical weapons and cluster bombs in the future? Otherwise they would have included it? Because, after all, these are the weapons of the day that the government possesses. How are you going to "protect" yourself from these weapons in order to keep the government in line?

 

[achilles28]

Quote from Brass:

Really? You mean they didn't envision nukes, chemical weapons and cluster bombs in the future? Otherwise they would have included it? Because, after all, these are the weapons of the day that the government possesses. How are you going to "protect" yourself from these weapons in order to keep the government in line?

Are you a total and complete moron? Seriously. Are you?

The Constitution says guns. The Founders meant guns. It's that simple. That's it. Anything else, Corky?

 

[Brass]

Quote from achilles28:

Are you a total and complete moron? Seriously. Are you?

The Constitution says guns. The Founders meant guns. It's that simple. That's it. Anything else, Corky?

Since these guns are approved by the Second Amendment to protect yourself from the government, and the government NOW has stuff to make your weapons look like pop guns, how are you going to protect yourself from the government in the manner that the framers of the Constitution had intended? Does not the spirit of this outdated law, assuming you need to protect yourself from the government, imply that you should have the same "weapons of the day" so that you can protect yourself from an evil government in an effective way? That's what they intended, isn't it?

 

[Brass]

Quote from Maverick74:

It turns out we didn't need a law to stop Holmes, we just needed his psychiatrist to do his job!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/2...-suspect-laid-out-plans-in-package-mailed-to/

You need to read your own links:


...The source said the package had been in the mailroom since July 12, though another source who confirmed the discovery to FoxNews.com could not say if the package arrived prior to Friday's massacre. It was not clear why it had not been delivered to the psychiatrist. The notebook is now in possession of the FBI, sources told FoxNews.com...


Meanwhile, the automatic nature of the weapons had no bearing on the outlying nature of the carnage, right?

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from Brass:

You need to read your own links:


...The source said the package had been in the mailroom since July 12, though another source who confirmed the discovery to FoxNews.com could not say if the package arrived prior to Friday's massacre. It was not clear why it had not been delivered to the psychiatrist. The notebook is now in possession of the FBI, sources told FoxNews.com...


Meanwhile, the automatic nature of the weapons had no bearing on the outlying nature of the carnage, right?

If he had been restricted to just a shotgun and rifle, both with limited internal magazines it's likely there would have been fewer casualties.


That being said, there is also a part of me that agrees with the defense against the state argument.


But everyone doesn't need assault weapons. If every citizen had just one rifle the shear numbers alone would create the strength.

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from achilles28:

Are you a total and complete moron? Seriously. Are you?

The Constitution says guns. The Founders meant guns. It's that simple. That's it. Anything else, Corky?

Really, the constitution says "guns" ?
Could you post where it says that Corky ?

 

[achilles28]

Quote from bigarrow:

Really, the constitution says "guns" ?
Could you post where it says that Corky ?

What do you think they meant? Your physical arm? You fucking idiot?

Ever read the Federalist Papers? Do you know what "arms" means, moron?

 

[Trader7793]

Usually when someone argues for the Federal govt to ban semi-automatic "assault" weapons they fail to realize that it is not as simple as it seems to even define them properly. That is why the "1994 Assault weapons ban" used purely cosmetic items to define them. Items such as flash suppressors and pistol grips were used to classify one gun as an "assault weapon" while other guns with the same caliber and capabilites were ignored because they appeared more "sportsman" like.

In addition during the 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban, the US Supreme Court had not ruled that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right. Any bans that came about now would face some very strong court challenges.

The vast majority of murders in the US are committed with handguns and while shootings like the one in Colorado are very sensational, they are not how must victims of gun violence get shot. Ultimatley if the gun control proponents believe that the only way to reduce gun violence on any significant level is to attack the inanimate objects they blame for the carnage...they will have to ban, or drastically reduce civilian ownership of handguns. Despite what they say "Assault Weapons" would only be the beginning. Think about it...if some nut case walks into a mall with two Glock handguns even with reduced 10 round magazines and shoots 20 people and kills like 17 of them...the cries will go out about semi-automatic handguns and how no one needs more than one of them and more than 5 rounds in any one magazine. Once the public has accepted that banning firearms is the key to public safety you could easily be restricted to single shot weapons for hunting and target shooting purposes.

Organizations like the NRA do not exist to support gun control measures...like the left want them to. They exist to protect the 2nd amendment rights of their members and the public. If they were to stop being so strident in their views and actions they would be down to 200,000 members in a few months and other groups such as Gun Owners of America would take over. The NRA's effectiveness is a result of the fact that they do not pussyfoot around and compromise. They are not invincible and can be defeated, but wisely they do not just surrender everytime the gun ban crowd gets on TV and starts whinning about them.