I'll step back from the profanity for a moment.  Here's a ******* (sorry) boss from the first half of the twentieth century.  Inspired Martin Luther King.  Here's his words on the crap you've been offering.

"Whenever a new social hope allures the efforts of forward-looking men, there is one argument against the hope which always arises.  You cannot do that - men say - human nature is against it; human nature has always acted another way; you cannot change human nature; your hope is folly.  As one listens to such skepticism he sees that men mean by human nature a static, unalteratble thing, huge, inert, changeless, a dull mass that resists all transformation...

So far from being stiff and plastic, human nature is the most plastic, the most changeable thing with which we deal.  It can be brutalized beneath the brutes; it can rise into companionship with angels...Men can be transformed."

He's got some points behind his arguments.  Men said we could not end slavery.  We did.  Men said we could not allow black men the right to sit at a lunch counter.  We  did.  Men said we could not do many things of progress, and we did.

So if you want to ***** and moan about how there are guns now and will always be guns (and ****, i dont hear ANYONE of any relevance saying to get rid of all guns, so shove that **** in the hole it came from), then ******* roll up your sleeves and get to work to fix this problem.

Either you agree its a problem, or you dont.  If you dont, then **** you.  I've got twenty six year olds who'll tell you different.  If you agree its a problem, then you have two choices.  You can ******* deal with it, or you can hide behind bullshit.  Your choice.  When you make it, try and be a ******* man.

The rights arguments are ******* stupid.

There are way to many guns out there.  Therefor, we shouldn't make lows on high caliber ammo, high capacity magazines and assault rifles.

Gotcha.

Jesus people.  We aren't saying that everyone should turn in their guns.  We're saying that we much harder and more strict guns laws.  Make it a little harder for the ****** up people to access them. 

OK, you have a free make-a-law card.  You can make any law you want.    And as hard as it is for you emotional types, make a law that is enforceable, will likely be complied with, and the majority of normal tax-paying non ex-con responsible people would follow.   Nothing stupid like 'Gun Free Zones', or fake hollywood names like 'cop-killer bullets'.
Tell us what it is, tell us how if would have avoided the CT shooting, or the Batman shooting, or Columbine, or the Sikh temple, or the WVU shooting, or the Amish shooting, whatever,  and how it will lower the killing of innocents in the US.

We'll be happy to follow it.

Posted by slowmoe on 12/20/2012 12:01:00 PM (view original):
OK, you have a free make-a-law card.  You can make any law you want.    And as hard as it is for you emotional types, make a law that is enforceable, will likely be complied with, and the majority of normal tax-paying non ex-con responsible people would follow.   Nothing stupid like 'Gun Free Zones', or fake hollywood names like 'cop-killer bullets'.
Tell us what it is, tell us how if would have avoided the CT shooting, or the Batman shooting, or Columbine, or the Sikh temple, or the WVU shooting, or the Amish shooting, whatever,  and how it will lower the killing of innocents in the US.

We'll be happy to follow it.

This.

Posted by winnetka1 on 12/19/2012 6:59:00 PM (view original):
you are either for more guns or for less guns...one side or the other. Bumper sticker slogans like "guns don't kill people, people kill people" are cute and catchy but at the end of the day you are either for more guns or less guns. We are an extremely violent country so I don't foster any allusions that people will fall in line with the less guns is better theory...I'm just saying that I do.

disagree. i could care less whether there are more or less guns, personally

Posted by jiml60 on 12/20/2012 11:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/20/2012 2:49:00 AM (view original):
They always toss out the huge numbers, but in reality most of those are drug and gang related crimes.

I cannot imagine them turning in their guns if we change the laws.

So those lives are worth less than ordinary, innocent humans?

According to your inhumane logic, we won't have to worry about them turning in guns as they will kill each other off.

jim, we are more evolved than gangbangers and druggies...we should be able to do what we want to them.

Posted by rcrusso on 12/20/2012 2:32:00 AM (view original):
Oh and by the way, **** YOU jclarkbaker you ignorant piece of ****!

You're a dumb ****.  Keep posting posters that reflect 6th grade logic you mental midget.

Posted by nanu on 12/20/2012 10:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 12/19/2012 11:32:00 PM (view original):
Guns are not going to be eliminated.  Stop wasting our time discussing it.  And measures such as waiting periods, limiting magazine capacity, banning "assault rifles", etc. are completely and utterly useless.  They prevent absolutely nothing.  And now the hysterics are complaining about video games.  Give me a ******* break.

This guy was ******* crazy.  But this nation has decided to mainstream these people.  The ACLU is all over it.  Crazy people and criminals are the major gun killers.  Period.  You keep guns out of their hands, and you greatly reduce the number of gun deaths (numbers that have been steadily declining).

PS:  Bloomberg is a ******* moron.  I have never heard such absolute idiocy in my entire life.  He is proof positive New Yorkers are ******* idiots.  Example:  when asked to comment on Rep. Gohmert's comment that he wished the principal had had a gun, Bloomberg responded:  "There are dumb statements and then there are stupid statements....I don't know what the gun would have done".  Yes, Mayor (who is surrounded by armed guards, mind you), there are dumb and stupid statements.  Because when faced with a gunman, being unarmed is no different than being armed, YOU ******* DUMB ************.

And on an unrelated note, how do you dress up as Iowa?

To be clear, you say two things here:

(1) you'll never keep guns out of people's hands, and
(2) the solution is to keep guns out of people's hands.

**** and ****.  What the **** are you saying?   ****.

Too complicated for you?

Yes.  1 and 2 are mutually exclusive.  So, explain it for me, real nice and slow.

Posted by slowmoe on 12/20/2012 12:01:00 PM (view original):
OK, you have a free make-a-law card.  You can make any law you want.    And as hard as it is for you emotional types, make a law that is enforceable, will likely be complied with, and the majority of normal tax-paying non ex-con responsible people would follow.   Nothing stupid like 'Gun Free Zones', or fake hollywood names like 'cop-killer bullets'.
Tell us what it is, tell us how if would have avoided the CT shooting, or the Batman shooting, or Columbine, or the Sikh temple, or the WVU shooting, or the Amish shooting, whatever,  and how it will lower the killing of innocents in the US.

We'll be happy to follow it.

Easy.  My law would:

* Begin with a finding that the excessive ownership of unnecessary weaponry is putting the lives of our children and innocents in danger.  
* Prohibit the advertising of guns and ammunition.  
* Require gun owners to submit a twice-yearly plan to some government office detailing their catalogue of gunpowder weapons and how they intend to safely store them.  (There can be a de minimus provision - if you own only one handgun, or something, you don't have to file).
* Require gun owners to state the purpose for owning said weapons, and justify the reason for owning them.  
* Require gun owners to submit a statement explaining how, if they had to, they would reduce their arsenal to allow them the bare minimum needed for their stated purposes - or, how they might use a lesser powered gun for the same purposes.
* Offer a tax credit for gun owners who lawfuly and safely dispose of their guns
* Create an educational campaign run by an independent third party that analyzes available guns on the market and offers direction on which ones are good for hunting, which are good for personal protection, and which are good for slaughtering 20 children in a school.
* Require the gun owners signature, asserting their honesty, on pain of perjury.


 

How this will work?

The onerous paperwork will encourage frivolous gun owners to seek the tax credit to dispose of their unnecessary weapons;
The educational campaign and the 'alternatives analysis' will encourage owners with too many guns, or too powerful guns, to draw down their stockpiles;
The lack of advertising will reduce the emotional manipulation of citizens - many of whom dont need guns in the slightest and decide on the basis of social proof and advertising that they do; and
The planning exercise will encourage safe storage of their weapons.

Enforcement can pretty straightforward  - when someone comes in to buy ammunition, or get their hunting license, or what have you, they gotta show the stamped card that says they've filed their paperwork.  Audits can be conducted to keep government manpower requirements down.  A soft warning, and an offer of help for failure to do their paperwork properly, and you'll be off and running with a minimum of fuss.

I own 2 rifles including one with a 20 round magazine, shotgun and 2 handguns.

I keep them in a gun locker and my bedside drawer.

I keep them for hunting, self defense and to use in the event of an enemy foreign or domestic violating American freedom.

Since I might be fighting a far better armed foe I cannot reduce my level of armament in any way.

I will sign this.

And can I run the PSAs?

oh, and every gun sold comes with a sticker which has on it the face of one of the kids killed in Newtown.  every single one.

Why not a picture of every unarmed person ever killed by an armed one?