Scarborough gets it right
 

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:02:46 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,

Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...

It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.

Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws.

http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son?

Thanks to Reagan for cutting mental health programs....

Have we not had Democrat presidents and Democrat controlled congresses since Reagan?

What a stupid f'ing comment, Kevin.

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy, especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


It will. I have been watching videos of people put into situations where
they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,
some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...

A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when
the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the
weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is
either for penis power, or offense...

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:41:45 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:



The best guess I can come up with is 96% of all gun related crimes are
committed by career criminals, using a stolen gun. That seems to be the
consensus among the detectives and criminologists I have talked to.

~snerk~
"The best guess I can come up with..."

You left out the last two entries on that page:

"But the lack of information makes all this pretty murky."

"Stranger"

Signed by "Stranger"? This is your researched, footnoted, reliable info?

You are truly a laugh a minute!

Because it's "murky" means it isn't true? "Stranger"? Are you like Harry
and think that it's prudent to use your real name on the net? Do you
realize that "Stranger" was just presenting before said data?



http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-...ce/welcome.htm

Funny, if you drill down on this data, it separates deaths by handgun and "other guns". Since assault rifles aren't handguns, we must include them in with rifles and shotguns in "other guns". And the data shows not only that handgun deaths occur at around 4X the rate as all "other guns" combined, but also that the rate of deaths for all types have reduced sharply since the '90s, which is exactly what I quoted in another thread.


Even more interesting is that the "other guns" death rate number roughly equals "knife" in deaths. JPS, pay attention.

Thanks for not reading or understanding your own links enough to realize they don't support your statements at all.

Well sure they do, your problem is you cherry pick pieces instead of
being able to comprehend the whole story.

The sad thing is, I really do believe you think they do.

I KNOW that you cherry pick your data.

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:47:14 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,

Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...

It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.

Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws.

http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son?

Thanks, I'd heard mention of this story but hadn't seen it yet. I believe the mother should have
called the law and pressed charges when threatened with the knife.

But you don't like raising taxes so how are we going to pay for all of
the prisons to house these people in? Gee, the mental hospitals that got
closed aren't sounding so bad now, eh?

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:02:46 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,

Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...

It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.

Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws.

http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son?

Thanks to Reagan for cutting mental health programs....

Have we not had Democrat presidents and Democrat controlled congresses since Reagan?

What a stupid f'ing comment, Kevin.

Are you really saying that because we've had democratic presidents and
democratic congress since Reagan that the Republicans would have voted
with them to re-open these facilities?

What a stupid ****ing thought, Racist John.

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:56:43 -0500, JustWait
wrote:



So what do you all think of 30 clips?

I bet you $1000 the guy did not have a single "clip".

There were no M-1s mentioned and I doubt seriously he had the charging
adapter to load a magazine from a stripper clip.

He had LOTS of ammo:

http://tinyurl.com/c3g7mhm

Scarborough gets it right
 

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:06:23 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:07:11 -0500, ESAD wrote:



On 12/18/12 1:41 PM, wrote:



It is clear there was something wrong with these people's thinking

processes. I am sure we will be hearing a lot more psychobabble as

this story goes on.

There has to be something that separates a responsible gun owner like

you from this waste of oxygen.





I think it is a little different when lay people try to psychoanalyze

someone who has committed a horrific act such as the one in Newtown. The

few professional psychotherapists I have seen interviewed on TV are

rightly reluctant to play that game in the absence of a face to face

evaluation and, of course, that isn't going to happen. Some of the

"symptoms" and behaviors attributed to the shooter suggest

schizophrenia. If that is the case, it manifests itself in many

different ways, and it is silly to think in the absence of evidence the

shooter did what he did for "fame," or to be somebody, or even to "get

even." We may never know what was on his mind. According to my wife, it

is "very interesting" that he killed his mother. Matricide is not

common, even among the severely mentally ill. Particide is a bit more

common, especially where the father has sexually abused his child.





I am not sure "professionals" have a much better grip on why people do
these things.

Child psychologists have gotten us into a lot of the child rearing problems we're in now. The feel good, no red ink, no score keeping bull**** has caused many of the issues we're seeing in the newer generations.

He may have simply shot mom because she was trying to keep him from
taking her guns ... but there certainly could have been other factors.

It's all a guess. I have to wonder why he targeted the school where she worked and kids she worked with. Did he think she loved them more than she loved him?

He was certainly "nuts".

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:43:05 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

That would certainly make a dent. Fact remains, some 90% of gun crimes
were committed with a gun that someone either stole or "borrowed" from a
legal owner.


Why don't we just make theft illegal?
That should stop it.

That's just stupid on so many levels.


Then I suppose gun laws are even stupider. You are the one who says
most criminals have stolen guns. Why bother with all of the laws about
the legal sale?

Yeah, those grade school kids should be armed to the teeth with
automatic weapons. And yes, most crimes committed with guns are with
stolen guns. I've shown that.

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/18/2012 4:21 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:06:23 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:07:11 -0500, ESAD wrote:



On 12/18/12 1:41 PM, wrote:



It is clear there was something wrong with these people's thinking

processes. I am sure we will be hearing a lot more psychobabble as

this story goes on.

There has to be something that separates a responsible gun owner like

you from this waste of oxygen.





I think it is a little different when lay people try to psychoanalyze

someone who has committed a horrific act such as the one in Newtown. The

few professional psychotherapists I have seen interviewed on TV are

rightly reluctant to play that game in the absence of a face to face

evaluation and, of course, that isn't going to happen. Some of the

"symptoms" and behaviors attributed to the shooter suggest

schizophrenia. If that is the case, it manifests itself in many

different ways, and it is silly to think in the absence of evidence the

shooter did what he did for "fame," or to be somebody, or even to "get

even." We may never know what was on his mind. According to my wife, it

is "very interesting" that he killed his mother. Matricide is not

common, even among the severely mentally ill. Particide is a bit more

common, especially where the father has sexually abused his child.





I am not sure "professionals" have a much better grip on why people do
these things.

Child psychologists have gotten us into a lot of the child rearing problems we're in now. The feel good, no red ink, no score keeping bull**** has caused many of the issues we're seeing in the newer generations.

He may have simply shot mom because she was trying to keep him from
taking her guns ... but there certainly could have been other factors.

It's all a guess. I have to wonder why he targeted the school where she worked and kids she worked with. Did he think she loved them more than she loved him?

Yes...

He was certainly "nuts".

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/18/2012 3:45 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:02:46 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,

Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...

It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.

Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws.

http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son?

Thanks to Reagan for cutting mental health programs....

Have we not had Democrat presidents and Democrat controlled congresses since Reagan?

What a stupid f'ing comment, Kevin.


Who held congress at the time the bill was passed?

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/18/2012 4:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:56:43 -0500, JustWait
wrote:



So what do you all think of 30 clips?

I bet you $1000 the guy did not have a single "clip".

There were no M-1s mentioned and I doubt seriously he had the charging
adapter to load a magazine from a stripper clip.


Forgetting that I support "your" right to bear arms... you sound like
the guys on the groups that can only answer the question as to why they
need them, the only answer they wrote up was "because we can"... It's a
dodge for them, is this a dodge for you?

Ok... then for those of us not in the cool group:) What do you all think
of a weapon that can hold and fire up to 30 rounds in succession without
anything but pulling the trigger?

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/18/12 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy, especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


So, when will we see the aftermath of your multi-magazine rampage? Are
you going over to Springfield Mall to kill a bunch of Latinos?

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/18/2012 4:21 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:43:05 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

That would certainly make a dent. Fact remains, some 90% of gun crimes
were committed with a gun that someone either stole or "borrowed" from a
legal owner.


Why don't we just make theft illegal?
That should stop it.

That's just stupid on so many levels.


Then I suppose gun laws are even stupider. You are the one who says
most criminals have stolen guns. Why bother with all of the laws about
the legal sale?

Yeah, those grade school kids should be armed to the teeth with
automatic weapons.

Why must you always go to the extreme with the drama? Do you think it
helps you make your point, that only works on tv sit coms...

And yes, most crimes committed with guns are with
stolen guns. I've shown that.

Scarborough gets it right
 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy, especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


It will.

Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it quite easy to change 10 round
magazines quite rapidly.

I have been watching videos of people put into situations where
they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,
some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...

Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone using more than one will drop
his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.

Right.


A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when
the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the
weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is
either for penis power, or offense...

The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said nothing here that shows a ten
round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis power or not.

Scarborough gets it right
 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:17:02 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:47:14 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,

Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...

It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.

Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws.

http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son?

Thanks, I'd heard mention of this story but hadn't seen it yet. I believe the mother should have
called the law and pressed charges when threatened with the knife.

But you don't like raising taxes so how are we going to pay for all of
the prisons to house these people in? Gee, the mental hospitals that got
closed aren't sounding so bad now, eh?

Who says I don't like raising taxes? Surely, Kevin, you can show the cite - right?

Why have the Democrat presidents and Congress not opened your mental hospitals, Kevin?

It's funny that you bypass legitimate questions.

Scarborough gets it right
 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:18:33 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:02:46 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,

Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...

It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.

Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws.

http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son?

Thanks to Reagan for cutting mental health programs....

Have we not had Democrat presidents and Democrat controlled congresses since Reagan?

What a stupid f'ing comment, Kevin.

Are you really saying that because we've had democratic presidents and
democratic congress since Reagan that the Republicans would have voted
with them to re-open these facilities?

What a stupid ****ing thought, Racist John.

I asked you a question. Did you answer it? Did the Democrats even try? No, 'cause they don't give a
****.

Here, this will indicate how much your beloved Democrats care about people: The Democrats have
contributed greatly to the poor - by keeping them poor.

City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit, MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo, NY 29..9%
3. Cincinnati, OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland, OH 27.0%
5. Miami, FL 26.9%
5. St. Louis, MO 26.8%
7. El Paso, TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee, WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia, PA 25.1%
10. Newark, NJ 24.2%
U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007

What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty
rate all have in common? Democrat mayors.

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a
Republican mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati, OH (3rd)...since 1984;

Cleveland, OH (4th)...since 1989;

Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;

St. Louis, MO (6th)....since 1949;

El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;

Milwaukee, WI (8th)...since 1908;

Philadelphia, PA (9th)...since 1952;

Newark, NJ (10th)...since 1907.

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/18/2012 4:43 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy, especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


It will.

Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it quite easy to change 10 round
magazines quite rapidly.

I have been watching videos of people put into situations where
they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,
some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...

Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone using more than one will drop
his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.

Right.


A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when
the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the
weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is
either for penis power, or offense...

The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said nothing here that shows a ten
round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis power or not.


So, why do you need 30... another dodge?

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/18/2012 4:50 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:32:08 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 4:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:56:43 -0500, JustWait
wrote:



So what do you all think of 30 clips?

I bet you $1000 the guy did not have a single "clip".

There were no M-1s mentioned and I doubt seriously he had the charging
adapter to load a magazine from a stripper clip.


Forgetting that I support "your" right to bear arms... you sound like
the guys on the groups that can only answer the question as to why they
need them, the only answer they wrote up was "because we can"... It's a
dodge for them, is this a dodge for you?

Ok... then for those of us not in the cool group:) What do you all think
of a weapon that can hold and fire up to 30 rounds in succession without
anything but pulling the trigger?



Just making the point that a magazine is not a clip.



So why does anybody need 30 in a clip outside PoPo, or Military?

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/18/12 5:10 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/18/2012 4:50 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:32:08 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 4:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:56:43 -0500, JustWait
wrote:



So what do you all think of 30 clips?

I bet you $1000 the guy did not have a single "clip".

There were no M-1s mentioned and I doubt seriously he had the charging
adapter to load a magazine from a stripper clip.


Forgetting that I support "your" right to bear arms... you sound like
the guys on the groups that can only answer the question as to why they
need them, the only answer they wrote up was "because we can"... It's a
dodge for them, is this a dodge for you?

Ok... then for those of us not in the cool group:) What do you all think
of a weapon that can hold and fire up to 30 rounds in succession without
anything but pulling the trigger?



Just making the point that a magazine is not a clip.



So why does anybody need 30 in a clip outside PoPo, or Military?

Because it makes them feel...manly.

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/18/2012 5:11 PM, ESAD wrote:
On 12/18/12 5:10 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/18/2012 4:50 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:32:08 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 4:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:56:43 -0500, JustWait
wrote:



So what do you all think of 30 clips?

I bet you $1000 the guy did not have a single "clip".

There were no M-1s mentioned and I doubt seriously he had the charging
adapter to load a magazine from a stripper clip.


Forgetting that I support "your" right to bear arms... you sound like
the guys on the groups that can only answer the question as to why they
need them, the only answer they wrote up was "because we can"... It's a
dodge for them, is this a dodge for you?

Ok... then for those of us not in the cool group:) What do you all
think
of a weapon that can hold and fire up to 30 rounds in succession
without
anything but pulling the trigger?



Just making the point that a magazine is not a clip.



So why does anybody need 30 in a clip outside PoPo, or Military?

Because it makes them feel...manly.

You should know.

Scarborough gets it right
 

"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First,
why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why
target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of
one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in
terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number
in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false
hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many
guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out
mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on
magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy,
especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty
rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up
to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks
happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


It will.

Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it
quite easy to change 10 round
magazines quite rapidly.

I have been watching videos of people put into situations where
they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,
some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...

Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone
using more than one will drop
his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.

Right.


A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when
the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the
weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is
either for penis power, or offense...

The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said
nothing here that shows a ten
round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis
power or not.

----------------------------------------------------------

There's no question that killing someone with a single shot derringer
is possible. That's not really the question or issue.
What has to be resolved in order to make any kind of meaningful gun
control reform possible in this country is to define what
the designed purpose of a weapon is. Defensive? Offensive? Yes,
you can still kill with a gun primarily designed as a defensive
weapon. But why make guns primarily designed as "offensive" weapons
generally available to Joe Doe public? Doesn't make any sense.

Scarborough gets it right
 

ESAD wrote:
On 12/18/12 12:01 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 06:47:07 -0500, ESAD wrote:

Perhaps the police have found or will find some clues that shine light
on the shooter's mental state. Maybe not. The problem with guessing on
these cases where the shooter is dead and there is a lack of concrete
evidence is that it usually points in the wrong direction. I've read
and
heard some reports that "violent video games" may have been involved.
Well, video games don't cause schizophrenia.




We have a culture of violence. We were started in a revolution where
we threw out all of the rules of "civilized warfare", our most bloody
war was amongst ourselves and the rest of the world uses us as their
enforcer/hit man.
You really just have to look to the media to see the model for these
shootings. What passes for news and entertainment (which is only
separated by a blurry line) all you see is mass killing of one kind or
another. The public seems to be drawn to it and the media outlets are
more than happy to oblige.
The biggest news story last year was the cold blooded murder of Osama
Bin Laden. I agree he needed killing but it was still a "hit" worthy
of Al Capone or Pablo Escobar.

We love bomb camera and drone strike videos even when a bunch of kids
are "collateral damage".
.
It is not shocking that a disturbed individual thinks the best way to
be somebody is to kill a lot of people. The more shocking the victims,
the bigger splash you get.


Once again, you are just extending the psychobabble. What evidence do
you have that the Connecticut shooter wanted to "be somebody"?


Check out the West Memphis Three. Pay your taxes first, deadbeat.

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/18/2012 10:10 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:10:06 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 4:50 PM, wrote:

Just making the point that a magazine is not a clip.



So why does anybody need 30 in a clip outside PoPo, or Military?

I would ask why the PoPo need a 30 round magazine too.

Marksmanship went out the window when the cops started carrying double
stack 9MMs and they end up doing things like shooting 11 innocent
bystanders, taking down ONE perp. (recently in NYC)


Last chance... So why does anybody need 30 in a clip outside PoPo, or
Military?

Scarborough gets it right
 

JustWait wrote:
On 12/18/2012 10:10 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:10:06 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 4:50 PM, wrote:

Just making the point that a magazine is not a clip.



So why does anybody need 30 in a clip outside PoPo, or Military?

I would ask why the PoPo need a 30 round magazine too.

Marksmanship went out the window when the cops started carrying double
stack 9MMs and they end up doing things like shooting 11 innocent
bystanders, taking down ONE perp. (recently in NYC)


Last chance... So why does anybody need 30 in a clip outside PoPo, or Military?

ZPAW?

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/18/2012 12:21 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:

Fine - do away with 'military style...combat assault rifles with high capacity (not defined)
magazines'. How the hell would that stop someone who wanted to kill twenty kids? It might make him a
little slower, but not much!

Yeah, lets make it as easy as possible.

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/19/2012 1:36 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:39:43 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 10:10 PM, wrote:

So why does anybody need 30 in a clip outside PoPo, or Military?

I would ask why the PoPo need a 30 round magazine too.

Marksmanship went out the window when the cops started carrying double
stack 9MMs and they end up doing things like shooting 11 innocent
bystanders, taking down ONE perp. (recently in NYC)


Last chance... So why does anybody need 30 in a clip outside PoPo, or
Military?


Since when do you "need" something to be able to buy it?
Does anyone really "need" a ski boat?
How about a sporty car?

People can certainly misuse either of them but that doesn't mean the
majority of people can't have them.


Can't answer the question either... got it...

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article ,
says...

"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First,
why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why
target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of
one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in
terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number
in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false
hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many
guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out
mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on
magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy,
especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty
rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up
to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks
happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


It will.

Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it
quite easy to change 10 round
magazines quite rapidly.

I have been watching videos of people put into situations where
they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,
some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...

Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone
using more than one will drop
his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.

Right.


A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when
the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the
weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is
either for penis power, or offense...

The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said
nothing here that shows a ten
round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis
power or not.

----------------------------------------------------------

There's no question that killing someone with a single shot derringer
is possible. That's not really the question or issue.
What has to be resolved in order to make any kind of meaningful gun
control reform possible in this country is to define what
the designed purpose of a weapon is. Defensive? Offensive? Yes,
you can still kill with a gun primarily designed as a defensive
weapon. But why make guns primarily designed as "offensive" weapons
generally available to Joe Doe public? Doesn't make any sense.

Is a knife defensive or offensive? Is a sword defensive or offensive? Is
a baseball bat an offensive weapon or a defensive weapon.

The common thread in all of the mass killings is that there is a person
initiating the sequence of events.

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/19/2012 8:00 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First,
why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why
target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of
one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in
terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number
in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false
hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many
guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out
mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on
magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy,
especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty
rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up
to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks
happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


It will.

Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it
quite easy to change 10 round
magazines quite rapidly.

I have been watching videos of people put into situations where
they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,
some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...

Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone
using more than one will drop
his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.

Right.


A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when
the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the
weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is
either for penis power, or offense...

The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said
nothing here that shows a ten
round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis
power or not.

----------------------------------------------------------

There's no question that killing someone with a single shot derringer
is possible. That's not really the question or issue.
What has to be resolved in order to make any kind of meaningful gun
control reform possible in this country is to define what
the designed purpose of a weapon is. Defensive? Offensive? Yes,
you can still kill with a gun primarily designed as a defensive
weapon. But why make guns primarily designed as "offensive" weapons
generally available to Joe Doe public? Doesn't make any sense.

Is a knife defensive or offensive? Is a sword defensive or offensive? Is
a baseball bat an offensive weapon or a defensive weapon.

The common thread in all of the mass killings is that there is a person
initiating the sequence of events.



So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and
remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you need
a 30 round clip?

Scarborough gets it right
 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:33:55 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/18/12 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy, especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


So, when will we see the aftermath of your multi-magazine rampage? Are
you going over to Springfield Mall to kill a bunch of Latinos?

ESAD,
I'm not the one with the anger, honesty, narcissism, and tax evasion issues, the rampaging type.
Maybe you know one who is?

There are very few Mexicans in Springfield Mall.

Scarborough gets it right
 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:08:53 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/18/2012 4:43 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy, especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


It will.

Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it quite easy to change 10 round
magazines quite rapidly.

I have been watching videos of people put into situations where
they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,
some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...

Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone using more than one will drop
his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.

Right.


A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when
the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the
weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is
either for penis power, or offense...

The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said nothing here that shows a ten
round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis power or not.


So, why do you need 30... another dodge?

You don't, unless you're fighting off an attack of Taliban folks armed with AK's.

I never espoused the 30-round magazine. Outlaw them. I don't care.

My point is that three 10-round clips can do the same amount of damage in about 7-10 additional
seconds - at most.

Scarborough gets it right
 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:29:40 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
.. .

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First,
why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why
target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of
one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in
terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number
in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false
hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many
guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out
mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on
magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy,
especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty
rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up
to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks
happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


It will.

Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it
quite easy to change 10 round
magazines quite rapidly.

I have been watching videos of people put into situations where
they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,
some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...

Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone
using more than one will drop
his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.

Right.


A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when
the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the
weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is
either for penis power, or offense...

The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said
nothing here that shows a ten
round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis
power or not.

----------------------------------------------------------

There's no question that killing someone with a single shot derringer
is possible. That's not really the question or issue.
What has to be resolved in order to make any kind of meaningful gun
control reform possible in this country is to define what
the designed purpose of a weapon is. Defensive? Offensive? Yes,
you can still kill with a gun primarily designed as a defensive
weapon. But why make guns primarily designed as "offensive" weapons
generally available to Joe Doe public? Doesn't make any sense.


I agree. I see no need for AR-15s or the like in the marketplace. My point is that outlawing them
would have little effect on a determined killer, who could use a 'hunting rifle', like the ones I
showed you, with 10-round magazines (or 30 if they're not outlawed) and accomplish the same thing.

But, I'm all for outlawing assault weapons, and magazines which hold more than 10 rounds.

I just don't think it would make much difference to a killer.

Scarborough gets it right
 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:47:34 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:17:02 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:47:14 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,

Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...

It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.

Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws.

http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son?

Thanks, I'd heard mention of this story but hadn't seen it yet. I believe the mother should have
called the law and pressed charges when threatened with the knife.

But you don't like raising taxes so how are we going to pay for all of
the prisons to house these people in? Gee, the mental hospitals that got
closed aren't sounding so bad now, eh?

I keep hearing about these closed mental hospitals but most were
actually closed because civil rights and privacy advocates took away
all of the patients. It is very hard to keep someone in a mental
hospital after 72 hours if they want to go.

There is a guy around the corner from me who has been "Baker acted" at
least 30 times in the last 10 years (hauled away by the cops and put
in for observation). Sometimes he goes into rehab for a few weeks on
our dime, he calls it the spa, but most of the time he is home after
a few days.

Even court ordered (non-criminal) commitments can easily be vacated if
the patient files a "show cause" motion and there are lots of "rights"
groups who will file the motion for you.



The truth makes a lot of liberal lawyers and 'rights' groups sound pretty bad.

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/19/12 9:27 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:33:55 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/18/12 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy, especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


So, when will we see the aftermath of your multi-magazine rampage? Are
you going over to Springfield Mall to kill a bunch of Latinos?



There are very few Mexicans in Springfield Mall.



Springfield Mall and in fact much of the area just north of the mall
towards Annandale has one of the highest concentrations of MS-13
gangbangers along the Eastern Seaboard. There have been many "incidents"
reported by shoppers at that mall of being confronted by gang members.

If you put "ms-13 springfield, va" into a google search, you'll get a
lot of hits, and many of them have details of MS-13 gang activities
right down the street from you and what, about five miles away?

Oh, and MS-13 is transnational. It's not a "Mexican" gang.

You are an ignorant ass.

Scarborough gets it right
 

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:06:23 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:07:11 -0500, ESAD wrote:



On 12/18/12 1:41 PM, wrote:



It is clear there was something wrong with these people's thinking

processes. I am sure we will be hearing a lot more psychobabble as

this story goes on.

There has to be something that separates a responsible gun owner like

you from this waste of oxygen.





I think it is a little different when lay people try to psychoanalyze

someone who has committed a horrific act such as the one in Newtown. The

few professional psychotherapists I have seen interviewed on TV are

rightly reluctant to play that game in the absence of a face to face

evaluation and, of course, that isn't going to happen. Some of the

"symptoms" and behaviors attributed to the shooter suggest

schizophrenia. If that is the case, it manifests itself in many

different ways, and it is silly to think in the absence of evidence the

shooter did what he did for "fame," or to be somebody, or even to "get

even." We may never know what was on his mind. According to my wife, it

is "very interesting" that he killed his mother. Matricide is not

common, even among the severely mentally ill. Particide is a bit more

common, especially where the father has sexually abused his child.





I am not sure "professionals" have a much better grip on why people do
these things.

Child psychologists have gotten us into a lot of the child rearing problems we're in now. The feel good, no red ink, no score keeping bull**** has caused many of the issues we're seeing in the newer generations.

He may have simply shot mom because she was trying to keep him from
taking her guns ... but there certainly could have been other factors.

It's all a guess. I have to wonder why he targeted the school where she worked and kids she worked with. Did he think she loved them more than she loved him?

He was certainly "nuts".

It's rather confusing but it seems like now that she's not affiliated
with the school.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive..._not_a_teacher.
php

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:17:02 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:47:14 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,

Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...

It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.

Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws.

http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son?

Thanks, I'd heard mention of this story but hadn't seen it yet. I believe the mother should have
called the law and pressed charges when threatened with the knife.

But you don't like raising taxes so how are we going to pay for all of
the prisons to house these people in? Gee, the mental hospitals that got
closed aren't sounding so bad now, eh?

Who says I don't like raising taxes? Surely, Kevin, you can show the cite - right?

You are a hard core narrow minded right winger. As such, they don't like
to raise taxes, Racist John. Are you saying that you DO want to raise
taxes?

Why have the Democrat presidents and Congress not opened your mental hospitals, Kevin?

IF you are talking to ME, Racist John, I don't have any mental hospitals
to open.

It's funny that you bypass legitimate questions.

Such as?

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:17:02 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:47:14 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,

Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...

It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.

Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws.

http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son?

Thanks, I'd heard mention of this story but hadn't seen it yet. I believe the mother should have
called the law and pressed charges when threatened with the knife.

But you don't like raising taxes so how are we going to pay for all of
the prisons to house these people in? Gee, the mental hospitals that got
closed aren't sounding so bad now, eh?

I keep hearing about these closed mental hospitals but most were
actually closed because civil rights and privacy advocates took away
all of the patients. It is very hard to keep someone in a mental
hospital after 72 hours if they want to go.

There is a guy around the corner from me who has been "Baker acted" at
least 30 times in the last 10 years (hauled away by the cops and put
in for observation). Sometimes he goes into rehab for a few weeks on
our dime, he calls it the spa, but most of the time he is home after
a few days.

Even court ordered (non-criminal) commitments can easily be vacated if
the patient files a "show cause" motion and there are lots of "rights"
groups who will file the motion for you.


Let's just say I know first hand what the cuts done. I was young at the
time, but had a family member suffer from mental illness and required
constant care. That fell into the hands of my 70 year old aunt because
the state mental hospital was closed down.

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:18:33 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:02:46 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,

Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...

It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.

Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws.

http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son?

Thanks to Reagan for cutting mental health programs....

Have we not had Democrat presidents and Democrat controlled congresses since Reagan?

What a stupid f'ing comment, Kevin.

Are you really saying that because we've had democratic presidents and
democratic congress since Reagan that the Republicans would have voted
with them to re-open these facilities?

What a stupid ****ing thought, Racist John.

I asked you a question. Did you answer it? Did the Democrats even try? No, 'cause they don't give a
****.

Here, this will indicate how much your beloved Democrats care about people: The Democrats have
contributed greatly to the poor - by keeping them poor.

City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit, MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo, NY 29..9%
3. Cincinnati, OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland, OH 27.0%
5. Miami, FL 26.9%
5. St. Louis, MO 26.8%
7. El Paso, TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee, WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia, PA 25.1%
10. Newark, NJ 24.2%
U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007

What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty
rate all have in common? Democrat mayors.

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a
Republican mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati, OH (3rd)...since 1984;

Cleveland, OH (4th)...since 1989;

Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;

St. Louis, MO (6th)....since 1949;

El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;

Milwaukee, WI (8th)...since 1908;

Philadelphia, PA (9th)...since 1952;

Newark, NJ (10th)...since 1907.

And this has just WHAT to do with this thread, Racist John?

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article , says...

On 12/18/2012 4:21 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:06:23 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:07:11 -0500, ESAD wrote:



On 12/18/12 1:41 PM, wrote:



It is clear there was something wrong with these people's thinking

processes. I am sure we will be hearing a lot more psychobabble as

this story goes on.

There has to be something that separates a responsible gun owner like

you from this waste of oxygen.





I think it is a little different when lay people try to psychoanalyze

someone who has committed a horrific act such as the one in Newtown. The

few professional psychotherapists I have seen interviewed on TV are

rightly reluctant to play that game in the absence of a face to face

evaluation and, of course, that isn't going to happen. Some of the

"symptoms" and behaviors attributed to the shooter suggest

schizophrenia. If that is the case, it manifests itself in many

different ways, and it is silly to think in the absence of evidence the

shooter did what he did for "fame," or to be somebody, or even to "get

even." We may never know what was on his mind. According to my wife, it

is "very interesting" that he killed his mother. Matricide is not

common, even among the severely mentally ill. Particide is a bit more

common, especially where the father has sexually abused his child.





I am not sure "professionals" have a much better grip on why people do
these things.

Child psychologists have gotten us into a lot of the child rearing problems we're in now. The feel good, no red ink, no score keeping bull**** has caused many of the issues we're seeing in the newer generations.

He may have simply shot mom because she was trying to keep him from
taking her guns ... but there certainly could have been other factors.

It's all a guess. I have to wonder why he targeted the school where she worked and kids she worked with. Did he think she loved them more than she loved him?

Yes...

He was certainly "nuts".


Yes, what? She didn't work there.

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article , says...

On 12/18/2012 3:45 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:02:46 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,

Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...

It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.

Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws.

http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son?

Thanks to Reagan for cutting mental health programs....

Have we not had Democrat presidents and Democrat controlled congresses since Reagan?

What a stupid f'ing comment, Kevin.


Who held congress at the time the bill was passed?

Republicans, why?