There are some major downsides for liberals in Obama's unilateral executive orders.  Imagine what could happen if a real right wing conservative was elected.  Nibbling around the edges of our rights cuts both ways.

Executive order:  All women applying for an abortion must submit to the following:

Mental health background check
10 day waiting period during which her name and intentions will be advertised to allow anyone protesting the procedure an opportunity to intervene.
Written approval by the father of the fetus and her parents if she is a minor.

The president wouldn't be in violation of Roe v Wade, he would simply be setting "reasonable" conditions to protect the woman and her unborn child.

Now lets talk about immigration, welfare, "earned" income tax credits, affirmative action, voting ID requirements, and on and on.

Remember Fast and Furious? Well, they finally found their scapegoat. It seems the #2 ATF agent on the scene was personally buying and selling guns involved in F&F and then lying on his Form 4473, an action that would constitute a felony if he caught someone else doing it. I guess some animals really are more equal than others.

Emmeran wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

We can install guards at every school however let's be sure to fit them for caskets as part of the on-boarding procedure; naturally they will be the first body to hit the floor.

Very few of these chicken shit pimply-faced cowards would ever engage in a shootout with an armed guard.  They pick schools is because they are easy "gun free" targets.

Tell that to the people at Columbine, they had an armed police officer assigned and on site at the time.

Thanks for bringing that up Em.  Once again you have helped me prove my point. Here's a fact check for you.

The armed guard, Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy Neil Gardner, was able to engage the killers, keeping them from shooting more victims, and he personally saved dozens of students.

phreddy wrote:

Thanks for bringing that up Em.  Once again you have helped me prove my point. Here's a fact check for you.

The armed guard, Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy Neil Gardner, was able to engage the killers, keeping them from shooting more victims, and he personally saved dozens of students.

I love you and your low hanging fruit.  So basically he wasn't effective, most of the killing occurred inside where he wasn't and he was at lunch so we need redundancy and there are multiple entrances so we need more deputies to cover all of them.  OK - let's just call it 10 deputies per school for simplicities sake - how many schools are there in Colorado alone?

But anyway let's roll with this idea of yours, which taxes are you going to increase to pay for it Mr. Conservative?  My quick and simple calculations say you are paying $500k ~ $1mm per school in America to roll out this plan.  Keep in mind this doesn't begin to address Universities, Community Colleges or the McDonald's.  And remember to fit those rent-a-cops for caskets up front, after all if you stand in the doorway watching the same kids come and go for 7 years you're going to get a bit complacent, that first bullet will be for the guard/deputy and we've just added one more to the body count.

Let's kick it up a notch, we can let the Dept. of Homeland Security run this program.  It's a good idea to have Federal employees armed and protecting every school, talk about your rush towards an Authoritarian State.

V wrote:

And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be?

Baywolfe wrote:

Shouldn't all this shit be up to the individual states and not the Federal Government?  Why do we need a national response to guns?

States Rights is an interesting topic these days, the world has shrunken with rapid travel and high speed communications.  The state lines are becoming negligible in a world where a small and rather cheap private plane can be had for $20k - you can cross half of the country in a day.  Ideas and messages flow around the world instantaneously and you can purchase anything anywhere if you have enough money.

Not exactly the realities the founding fathers wrote our constitution to deal with.

Besides, when was last time either major party left anything up to the states...

Last edited by Emmeran (2013-01-18 16:31:34)

phreddy wrote:

I have never advocated placing paid armed guards at schools.  My solution is to arm certain teachers and administrators and train them in police tactics.  They may not stop all of the killing, but they could surely confront the shooter and keep him from indiscriminately executing children. A bonus is that nobody knows who is armed and who isn't, so they cannot be targeted with the first attack.  Common sense says this will work better than restricting the capacity of magazines.  In addition these employees know everyone in the school and would be best equipped to recognize an intruder.  Give them an extra $10,000 per year like they do if a kindergarten teacher gets a masters degree in racial studies.

Nah, common sense says that eventually one of your chosen few will snap as she goes through the change and kill a few people.

And what do you have against reduced capacity magazines, hell we've fought and won entire campaigns with M-1's that had only an 8 round mag? 

And if it's your constitutional right to have a 100-round drum why isn't it your constitutional right to have a few AT-4's, hell they only cost $1500 each - I can afford that.  Where do you draw this arbitrary line of yours?

Or maybe you should just fess up that anything Obama or the Democrats propose will be categorically opposed by you without a moment of consideration. 

And have you ever had to deal with a woman going through the change?

(edit:  Actually it's more likely that the husband of the woman going through the change will snap)

Last edited by Emmeran (2013-01-18 17:57:55)

Emmeran wrote:

Baywolfe wrote:

Shouldn't all this shit be up to the individual states and not the Federal Government?  Why do we need a national response to guns?

States Rights is an interesting topic these days, the world has shrunken with rapid travel and high speed communications.  The state lines are becoming negligible in a world where a small and rather cheap private plane can be had for $20k - you can cross half of the country in a day.  Ideas and messages flow around the world instantaneously and you can purchase anything anywhere if you have enough money.

Not exactly the realities the founding fathers wrote our constitution to deal with.

Besides, when was last time either major party left anything up to the states...

All of this, while interesting and relevant, is beside the point. The goal of the NRA is probably no more complicated than selling the weapons necessary to arm these future guards. Allowing the marketing arm of the armaments industry to set national gun policy is idiotic even by American standards.

Happy Gun Appreciation Day!

Bigcat wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/three-hurt-firearm-accident-north-carolina-gun-show-234451916.html

This shit does my heart good.

HAH!  You admit that firearms serve a perfectly valid Darwinian purpose!

Bigcat wrote:

The nice thing is, if you let them keep the guns, eventually there will be none of them left.

Last edited by George Orr (2013-01-20 13:58:16)

Lip shitz wrote:

Bigcat wrote:

I am not anti gun, I own some guns. I am anti redneck-gunrights protesting-douchebag-hunter.

Real hunters and most rednecks knows that semi-automatic rifles and handguns are not for hunting.

I generally agree and I do like to hunt; assault weapons have zero purpose outside of a combat zone.  Handguns actually do have a purpose when hunting, remember once you get deep enough in the bush humans are no longer on top of the food chain.  Particularly if you are bow hunting.

I, however, do not and never have owned a hand gun.  I hunt with a bolt action rifle or a pump action shotgun.  I do have my eye on a match-grade AR-15, the key word being match grade; I'm really only seeking the accuracy and do not feel like fucking around and building one myself.  I could give a shit about magazine capacity or rate of fire as anyone who has shot competitively knows you only load one round at a time anyway. (or two mags of 5 for rapid fire stages)

We need a sticky thread just devoted to mass shootings.

GooberMcNutly wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

... assault weapons have zero purpose outside of a combat zone.  ...

I do have my eye on a match-grade AR-15, the key word being match grade; I'm really only seeking the accuracy and do not feel like fucking around and building one myself.  I could give a shit about magazine capacity or rate of fire as anyone who has shot competitively knows you only load one round at a time anyway. (or two mags of 5 for rapid fire stages)

Nice way to contradict yourself. That "match grade AR-15" is about as close to a definition of an "assault rifle" as you will find in the media or in the Democrats plan.

Or you could take the stance that "assault rifle" is, be definition, a fully automatic weapon and therefore your (and all) AR-15s are NOT assault rifles.

Which is it?

Look up the tech specs of a match grade rifle

If you buy an AR-15 and convert it to full auto, then join a militia, when you're out camping in the woods sitting around the fire in a circle do you polish your own weapon or should you reach over and polish the weapon of the guy next to you?

So, does the longer stainless barrel make it more of an evil killing machine or less?

Emmeran wrote:

My take is fairly simple, it should be more difficult to get a gun license than it is to get a drivers license

Where i live, you have to demonstrate proficiency to get an auto license.  You only have to request it, to get a gun permit and that is only for sidearms.  There are no license requirements for shotguns or rifles.

Doesn't make any sense; ergo I hate the NRA.   There has to be a point of reasonability we can reach, however if we don't I'd love to have a Super Cobra to play with.

Bigcat wrote:

Lip shitz wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

My take is fairly simple, it should be more difficult to get a gun license than it is to get a drivers license

Where i live, you have to demonstrate proficiency to get an auto license.  You only have to request it, to get a gun permit and that is only for sidearms.  There are no license requirements for shotguns or rifles.

Same here.

All this talk about so-called reasonable restrictions of firearms doesn't touch on the basic point.  If you allow the government to decide, they will keep pressing until eventually they take everything and make us all criminals.  It's already happening in certain cities like D.C.  Here is a case in the news today about a guy who shot a pit bull that was attacking a child.  He's facing significant charges.

Lip shitz wrote:

I really feel if i had portable shoulder mounted rocket launcher  ...

Silly ass shit.

It would be almost worth the money to watch you try.

Bigcat wrote:

Hey faggot.

Pardon.  Were you being spoken to?
Review.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Emmeran wrote:

GooberMcNutly wrote:

So, does the longer stainless barrel make it more of an evil killing machine or less?

I've got a rock in my backyard I can use to kill with also, I just have to get closer.  My take is fairly simple, it should be more difficult to get a gun license than it is to get a drivers license.

Regardless, I doubt that I'll buy it.  I'm in the middle of moving across the continent and looking for a new job; also target shooting is pretty much like golf, you spend a lot of money to do a silly thing and nobody really cares.

It should be more difficult to be allowed to produce a child than either of those two. 

We're one bad parenting job away from millions more people dying.  Probably in some other country, maybe not.

phreddy wrote:

Here's a little footnote to this story.  Feinstein's proposed law will exempt all government officials.  As it should be in a country where the government tells you when to jump and how high.

When my local USDA meat inspector is exempt from restrictions (presumably because he is less willing to bite the hand that feeds him) but my neighbor the disabled vet is not, I guess some animals really are more equal than others.

sigmoid freud wrote:

https://cruelery.com/uploads/34_1359339 … 119554.jpg

Exactly.  Liberals, love 'em or hate 'em, have been preaching the same sermon since the 1960's. 

Conservatives, love 'em or hate 'em, are either Pro or Anti US Government depending on who is in office.

Robert Heinlein once said, or probably quoted, "Scratch the surface of a Conservative and you'll find someone who supports the past over any future.  Scratch the surface of a Liberal and you'll find a Closet Aristocrat."

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

sigmoid freud wrote:

... "government officials " are exempted only for, and if, possession of such a weapon is reasonably necessary for the performance of their duties.

Well, given that most of them are robbing us fucking blind, it seems like having a gun is 'reasonably' in line with the performance of their 'duties'.

The NRA’s support for the original assault-weapon legislation highlights the often-hostile divide between the hunting/casual shooting crowd and black-rifle enthusiasts.

From the conservative holy one himself:  http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-05/ … pons-ban/2