T1B

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:28 pm**

Anyone wanna cite any stats as to how many NRA conventions have ever been shot up by a nutcase? Then maybe compare those numbers to how many times universities that forbid firearms on campus have been shot up?

TIA

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:29 pm**

Dins,

You do realize that the following exchange was just as likely?

Dinsdale wrote:George Washington: I'm thinking about pushing for a ban on slavery.

Thomas Jeffferson: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! ....good one, George!

I'm as anti-gun control as you are. But using this shooting to argue for expanded gun rights is a sure loser. There is simply no way for anyone, including those involved, to accurately assess the potential ability of armed citizens to effectively intervene. Stick to the only argument that matters when it comes to gun rights, the 2nd Amendment.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:31 pm**

Voice of Reason wrote: I think the point here is simply that the firearm control issue had nothing to do with this particular shooting and, therefore, the topic should be left the fuck out of it.

If that law would have passed and allowed fire arms on campus, yall would have used this as a reason to ban fire arms.

But since fire arms were banned, pro-fire arm people shouldnt throw this back in your faces.

Fire arm control has never been an issue in these cases yet for years yall have made it out to be one.

After all the school shootings, yall blamed Video Games, Music, Bullies, and Guns. Never the kids or their parents

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:33 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:George Washington: I'm thinking about pushing for a ban on non-criminals carrying firearms.

Thomas Jeffferson: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! ....good one, George!

Take 2:

George Washington: I'm thinking about pushing for a ban on slavery.

Thomas Jeffferson: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! ....good one, George

Take 3:

George Washington: I'm thinking about building a machine to take us to the moon.

Thomas Jeffferson: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! ....good one, George

Take 4:

George Washington: I'm thinking about giving a polio vaccinne to American children.

Thomas Jeffferson: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! ....good one, George

Take 5:

George Washington: I'm thinking about allying with the British.

Thomas Jeffferson: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! ....good one, George

Take 6:

George Washington: I'm thinking about cancelling my Dish Network, because DirectTV has more HD channels for my 75 inch screen.

Thomas Jeffferson: What the fuck are you talking about?

1 or 2 things has changed in 200 years.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:35 pm**

R-Jack wrote:I had no idea Marylin Manson had a new album out.

And someone owes R-Jack a RACK!

Since the rest of your douche nozzles missed it...

RACK!

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:35 pm**

mvscal wrote:

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:35 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:Educate yourselves, you complete fucking naby-pamby tards. Then when you're done, come on over and pry it from my cold, dead fingers...I'd recommend packing a lunch.

Fuck it. I’ll just shoot you and take your lunch.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:37 pm**

FWIW Virginia has concealed carry permits.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:37 pm**

Voice of Reason wrote: 1 or 2 things has changed in 200 years.

Yup.

And I can name Ten things that haven't...nor will they.

I hear China is nice this time of year, Amerihaters. I'd recommend the UK...but they're currently undergoing an unprecedented rash of gun violence.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:38 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:FWIW Virginia has concealed carry permits.

Unfortunately that right does not extend to college campuses.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:40 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:
Fuck it. I’ll just shoot you and take your lunch.

Bring something rangier than a 230grFMJ then...not that most guns aren't rangier than a .45ACP 230grFMJ. Might be able to come up with a 7.62X39, though...usually eliminates a threat pretty quickly.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:41 pm**

I think it's a misdemeanor trespassing charge if you get caught, but I'd have to check AND, it really doesn't matter.

By making it agin the law, law abiders, end up dead.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:42 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
And I can name Ten things that haven't...nor will they.

I call bullshit that you even have the capacity to "name ten things"

let alone name ten things that will never change.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:42 pm**

Dinsdale wrote: But if it helps you get started down the Road to Enlightenment, let's start with the fact that the state with the most permissive carry laws has the lowest rate of violent crime. And if you go down the list, you'll see that's not an anomality...it's a carved-in-stone theme.

I don't see anything about carry laws in that table (~surprise~). Even if there were, to attempt a direct state by state correlation between crime rate and carry laws ignores a raft of other relevant factors.

Lies, damn lies and statistics. You apparently can't even see through your own bullshit.

Of course that's not overly surprising coming from somebody who only recently insisted (and posted a link supposedly proving his contention) that there is no such thing as a stomach virus.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:43 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Tom In VA wrote: By making it agin the law, law abiders, end up dead.
At least they're safe, though.

The killers are.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:43 pm**

Voice of Reason wrote:I call bullshit that you even have the capacity to "name only ten things"

FTFY.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:43 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:But using this shooting to argue for expanded gun rights is a sure loser.
Since when did self-defense become an "expanded gun right"?

Since the ability to conceal and carry was limited. Which pretty much goes back to the founding of the Republic.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:46 pm**

Voice of Reason wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:
And I can name Ten things that haven't...nor will they.

I call bullshit that you even have the capacity to "name ten things"

let alone name ten things that will never change.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

While the "intent" of the Founders has been bickered about to no end, none of those have changed one iota...

TELL ME YOU KNEW?

And guess what -- I have an inalienable right to bear arms...sorry if you don't like it...but move to another country if it's that big of a deal to you. Of course, gun related violence is undergoing dramatic increases in many countries that deny their citizens this right...but if living a lie makes you feel better, then by all means move on to greener pastures.

It's nice to see the BoR is making a comeback, and violent crime rates are decresing as a result.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:49 pm**

The have UAV's, so i don't understand why non lethal weapons cannot be deployed in hallways of schools and office buildings.

Controlled via a control center. Sprinkler systems go off automatically, if someone tripped an alarm a video feed could be sent and ... I don't know.

"My sista got shot tha fuck up at school today,
With Whitey on the Moon".

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:50 pm**

Oh, and a little trivia question for you -- which country enacted the gun control laws in 1928 and 1938, thought to be the first national gun control laws in human history?

How did that work out for them?

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:53 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:
Fuck it. I’ll just shoot you and take your lunch.

Bring something rangier than a 230grFMJ then...not that most guns aren't rangier than a .45ACP 230grFMJ. Might be able to come up with a 7.62X39, though...usually eliminates a threat pretty quickly.

I’ll just scatter some shiny square-headed deck screws on your porch. You’ll be so distracted I could take you out with a wrist-rocket.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:53 pm**

Well it worked out well for the Nazis.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:56 pm**

Trivia quetion #2...the name of the large Socialist nation that underwent a revolution a couple of decades ago...a revolution that almost failed miserably, and would have, if it weren't for their citizens completely ignoring the gun control law was...

The ________ Union.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:57 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
Voice of Reason wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:
And I can name Ten things that haven't...nor will they.

I call bullshit that you even have the capacity to "name ten things"

let alone name ten things that will never change.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

While the "intent" of the Founders has been bickered about to no end, none of those have changed one iota...

TELL ME YOU KNEW?

And guess what -- I have an inalienable right to bear arms...sorry if you don't like it...but move to another country if it's that big of a deal to you. Of course, gun related violence is undergoing dramatic increases in many countries that deny their citizens this right...but if living a lie makes you feel better, then by all means move on to greener pastures.

It's nice to see the BoR is making a comeback, and violent crime rates are decresing as a result.

Wooosh

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:59 pm**

Interesting how this thread has quickly evolved into a gun-control thread with little discussion as to why exactly Mr. Kim went Mr. Klebold.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:59 pm**

By all means, then we should allow everybody free access to firearms. Where there is a sensible law intended to prevent unscrupulous folks from getting access to guns, let it be scuttled.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:02 pm**

MuchoBulls wrote:A report is saying that 2 hours went by between when the first shooting occurred and when students were notified via campus e-mail.

'Scuse me, but this is the realstory here--besides the 32 dead folks...

How the fuck do TWO HOURS pass-- not only before the notification, but between shooting sprees???

How could the campus security be so totally incompetent that so much time could lapse without EVERYONE knowing and watching out--with the gunman still on the loose!!!

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:03 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:Where there is a sensible law intended to prevent unscrupulous folks from getting access to guns, let it be scuttled.

Unscrupulous folks already "scuttle" the sensible laws. The only people the "sensible laws" hurt are the "sensible law abiding people" who are rendered helpless.

That doesn't sound sensible.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:06 pm**

Under Saddam Hussein, gun laws in Iraq were very permissive. Since the "revolution," there have been tight restrictions placed on guns.

How's that working out, in terms of the rate of gun violence?

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:10 pm**

MuchoBulls wrote:A report is saying that 2 hours went by between when the first shooting occurred and when students were notified via campus e-mail.

"Clear my calendar. I'm headed to Blacksburg!"

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:11 pm**

Whites have a much higher rate of gun ownership than blacks.

Do I really need to explain this one?

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:13 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:Oh, and a little trivia question for you -- which country enacted the gun control laws in 1928 and 1938, thought to be the first national gun control laws in human history? How did that work out for them?

Yet another bit of Clavensdalian disinformation. National gun control was practiced by the Japanese in the 16th Century.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html

Seriously, if you're going to be on my side on this issue, could you get your facts straight?

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:19 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:Oh, and a little trivia question for you -- which country enacted the gun control laws in 1928 and 1938, thought to be the first national gun control laws in human history? How did that work out for them?
Yet another bit of Clavensdalian disinformation. National gun control was practiced by the Japanese in the 16th Century.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html

Seriously, if you're going to be on my side on this issue, could you get your facts straight?

I think it was a well qualified statement "thought to be the first ....".

He didn't assert AS the first.

400 hundred years is a long time.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:29 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:I think it was a well qualified statement "thought to be the first ....".

Only thought by those who don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

He didn't assert AS the first.

400 hundred years is a long time.

400 years only scratches the surface. Governments have restricted the rights of their citizenry to own arms of all kinds since the dawn of time with varying degrees of success.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:40 pm**

I realize that, B, but within context of Dins' post I didn't see it to be an egregious attempt at misinformation or anything. His main point was that Nazi Germany enforced gun control. He dressed it up with the appropriate qualification ... "thought to be ....".

Had his main point been that Nazi Germany WAS the first, then you'd be correct.

Just my read on the post that's all.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:50 pm**

They were the first to build anything like a "superhighway" too.

Look where that got them.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:50 pm**

Nazi Germany is nothing more than anecdotal evidence. The are examples of nations with gun control more strict than that of the U.S. and a lower murder rate, as well.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:51 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:I realize that, B, but within context of Dins' post I didn't see it to be an egregious attempt at misinformation or anything. His main point was that Nazi Germany enforced gun control. He dressed it up with the appropriate qualification ... "thought to be ....".

Had his main point been that Nazi Germany WAS the first, then you'd be correct.

Just my read on the post that's all.

So as long as he drops the appropriate weasel words it's all good? He has the right idea that the BoR should be respected. But his argumentation is fucked when he starts using examples that are designed to play on nothing more than cheap emotional knee jerk reactions.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:51 pm**

Most junkies drank orange juice when they were kids.

That's why I'll never feed my kids orange juice.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:54 pm**

Atomic Punk wrote:
jtr wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:He probably turned his wrist watch in to handgun.
I dont get it.
I know you don't. Clue: Think Reggie.

Naked Gun ref?

T1B

At least 34 dead at VaTech {G}