|
Scarborough gets it right
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, who had received an A rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA) while he was in Congress, says that after last week’s massacre of 20 elementary school children that “the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant,” and he is now backing a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity clips. In an unusual commentary segment Monday on Morning Joe, Scarborough connected to the recent tragedy by noting that his own children were the age of those killed and one of his children has Asperger’s syndrome. “Politicians can no longer be allowed to defend the status quo,” he explained. “They must instead be forced to defend our children. Parents can no longer take no for an answer from Washington when the topic turns to protecting our children. The violence we see spreading from shopping malls in Oregon to movie theaters in Colorado to college campuses in Virginia to elementary schools in Connecticut — it’s being spawned by a toxic brew of popular culture, a growing mental health crisis and the proliferation of combat-style weapons.” “I am a conservative Republican who received the NRA’s highest ratings over four terms in Congress,” he continued. “I saw this debate over guns as a powerful, symbolic struggle between individual rights and government control… I’ve spent the last few days grasping for solutions and struggling for answers, while daring to question my long-held beliefs on these subjects.” Scarborough concluded: “I knew that day that the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant to the future that I want, that I demand for my children. Friday changed everything. It must change everything. We all must begin anew and demand that Washington’s old way of doing business is no longer acceptable. Entertainment moguls don’t have an absolute right to glorify murder while spreading mayhem in young minds across America. And our Bill of Rights does not guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-style, high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity magazines to whoever the hell they want. It is time for Congress to put children before deadly dogmas.” |
Scarborough gets it right
jps wrote:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, who had received an A rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA) while he was in Congress, says that after last week’s massacre of 20 elementary school children that “the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant,” and he is now backing a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity clips. In an unusual commentary segment Monday on Morning Joe, Scarborough connected to the recent tragedy by noting that his own children were the age of those killed and one of his children has Asperger’s syndrome. “Politicians can no longer be allowed to defend the status quo,” he explained. “They must instead be forced to defend our children. Parents can no longer take no for an answer from Washington when the topic turns to protecting our children. The violence we see spreading from shopping malls in Oregon to movie theaters in Colorado to college campuses in Virginia to elementary schools in Connecticut — it’s being spawned by a toxic brew of popular culture, a growing mental health crisis and the proliferation of combat-style weapons.” “I am a conservative Republican who received the NRA’s highest ratings over four terms in Congress,” he continued. “I saw this debate over guns as a powerful, symbolic struggle between individual rights and government control… I’ve spent the last few days grasping for solutions and struggling for answers, while daring to question my long-held beliefs on these subjects.” Scarborough concluded: “I knew that day that the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant to the future that I want, that I demand for my children. Friday changed everything. It must change everything. We all must begin anew and demand that Washington’s old way of doing business is no longer acceptable. Entertainment moguls don’t have an absolute right to glorify murder while spreading mayhem in young minds across America. And our Bill of Rights does not guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-style, high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity magazines to whoever the hell they want. It is time for Congress to put children before deadly dogmas.” 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. |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/17/12 1:18 PM, Califbill wrote:
jps wrote: MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, who had received an A rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA) while he was in Congress, says that after last week’s massacre of 20 elementary school children that “the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant,” and he is now backing a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity clips. In an unusual commentary segment Monday on Morning Joe, Scarborough connected to the recent tragedy by noting that his own children were the age of those killed and one of his children has Asperger’s syndrome. “Politicians can no longer be allowed to defend the status quo,” he explained. “They must instead be forced to defend our children. Parents can no longer take no for an answer from Washington when the topic turns to protecting our children. The violence we see spreading from shopping malls in Oregon to movie theaters in Colorado to college campuses in Virginia to elementary schools in Connecticut — it’s being spawned by a toxic brew of popular culture, a growing mental health crisis and the proliferation of combat-style weapons.” “I am a conservative Republican who received the NRA’s highest ratings over four terms in Congress,” he continued. “I saw this debate over guns as a powerful, symbolic struggle between individual rights and government control… I’ve spent the last few days grasping for solutions and struggling for answers, while daring to question my long-held beliefs on these subjects.” Scarborough concluded: “I knew that day that the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant to the future that I want, that I demand for my children. Friday changed everything. It must change everything. We all must begin anew and demand that Washington’s old way of doing business is no longer acceptable. Entertainment moguls don’t have an absolute right to glorify murder while spreading mayhem in young minds across America. And our Bill of Rights does not guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-style, high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity magazines to whoever the hell they want. It is time for Congress to put children before deadly dogmas.” 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. No, Bilious, he used a .223 Bushmaster "assault-style" rifle with 30-round magazines to kill the kids and the teachers. |
Scarborough gets it right
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:49:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:
What use do assault rifles have to the average gun owner? Going to start a war? === It turns out that the "AR-15 style guns" make pretty decent hunting and target rifles. They are not truly "assault rifles" however since they can not (in most cases) fire in fully automatic mode. I agree that it's hard to justify 30 round magazines when 5 or 10 is more than adequate for hunting or target practice. The big mags do look cool however and a lot of folks want them for that reason alone. Others view them as a survival weapon if civilization as we know it breaks down. Is that far fetched? Who can say. The whole problem with this unfortunate incident in Connecticut lies with the now deceased mother. She had a child with a long history of emotional instability, taught him how to shoot, and gave him full access to her well stocked arsenal. How stupid and irresponsible is that? |
Scarborough gets it right
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? |
Scarborough gets it right
"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". |
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
In article ,
says... 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. Cite? Oh, here's some good facts: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul...s-down-and-so- is-gun-ownership-20120722 http://www.guninformation.org/reasons.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...us-crime-rate- plunging |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/17/12 3:48 PM, 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". I have a lot of building trades union buddies, and a goodly number of these "hunt" deer and other critters. I don't hunt because I don't like the idea of killing Bambi or Bambi's mother, or any other helpless animal but, even though I don't think hunting is a sport, I don't begrudge my buddies their woodsy sport. I've been out stomping around in the forest and in the fields with my buddies while they hunt, though. That being said, I can't recall any of them hunting with anything but a traditional hunting rifle that holds a few rounds or a shotgun that holds a few rounds. Just one of my buddies has the time and financial wherewithal to hunt really big game, and the rifle round he prefers for that is a .375 H&H Magnum, which isn't as big a round as it sounds. Anyway, it holds a total of four rounds, including one in the chamber. Many states limit how many rounds you can have in a shotgun to three or four while hunting. Obviously, there are reasons why serious or semi-serious hunters aren't walking in the woods with semi-auto assault style rifle 30-round magazines. What's the real purpose of these semi-auto assault style rifles? To kill people, of course, and lots of them. They're not that suitable for hunting. I don't see any rational reason for rifles in calibers larger than, say, ..22LR, to be able to load up with more than a few rounds. A 22? 10-round magazine is adequate. Same with a semi-auto pistol. No reason for more than 10 rounds unless you plan to shoot up a school or a movie theater, eh? I happen to have a couple of hi-cap mags for my CZ target pistol, but I don't use them. I use the 10-rounders at the range and in competition. Oh...what might work? Making personal possession of certain firearms and certain sized mags after a certain date a violation of federal law, with serious penalties, and eliminating the gun show loophopes. No firearms transactions without paperwork and a background check. That would do for starters. |
Scarborough gets it right
On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:02:57 PM UTC-5, 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. Cite? http://www.tampabay.com/news/criminologist-says-mass-shootings-show-no-pattern-or-increase/1266381 |
Scarborough gets it right
On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:02:46 PM UTC-5, 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.... Stop being a liberal parrot. "The law that Reagan signed was the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), passed by the legislature & signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The idea was to "stem entry into the state hospital by encouraging the community system to accept more patients, hopefully improving quality of care while allowing state expense to be alleviated by the newly available federal funds." It also was designed to protect the rights of mental patients. It was considered a landmark of its time--a change in the attitude toward mental illness and its treatment. The law restricted involuntary commitment, among other things. It allows people to refuse treatment for mental illness, unless they are clearly a danger to someone else or themselves. It facilitated release of many patients---supposedly to go to community mental health treatment programs. Reagan's role, besides signing the bill, was using it as a reason to cut his budget. What Reagan did was, at the same time the bill was passed, to reduce the budget for state mental hospitals. His budget bill "abolished 1700 hospital staff positions and closed several of the state-operated aftercare facilities. Reagan promised to eliminate even more hospitals if the patient population continued to decline. Year-end population counts for the state hospitals had been declining by approximately 2000 people per year since 1960." This law presumed that the people released from hospitals or not committed at all would be funneled in community treatment as provided by the Short Doyle Act of 1957. It was "was designed to organize and finance community mental health services for persons with mental illness through locally administered and locally controlled community health programs." It also presumed that the mentally ill would voluntarily accept treatment if it were made available to them on a community basis. However, because of the restrictions on involuntary commitment, seriously mentally ill people who would not consent to treatment "who clearly needed treatment but did not fit the new criteria or who recycled through short term stays -- became a community dilemma. For them, there was nowhere to go." Once released, they would fail to take meds or get counseling and went right back to being seriously ill. Also, unfortunately, at the time LPS was implemented, funding for community systems either declined or was not beefed up. Many counties did not have adequate community mental health services in place and were unable to fund them. Federal funds for community mental health programs, which LPS assumed would pick up the slack, began drying up in the early 1980s, due to budget cutbacks in general. The Feds shifted funding responsibility to the states. Sources: http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~cmhsr/history.html Reform of the Lanterman, Petris, Short Act " It's not as simple as your mind thinks. (pun intended) |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/17/12 4:48 PM, wrote:
On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:02:46 PM UTC-5, 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.... Stop being a liberal parrot. "The law that Reagan signed was the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), passed by the legislature & signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The idea was to "stem entry into the state hospital by encouraging the community system to accept more patients, hopefully improving quality of care while allowing state expense to be alleviated by the newly available federal funds." It also was designed to protect the rights of mental patients. It was considered a landmark of its time--a change in the attitude toward mental illness and its treatment. The law restricted involuntary commitment, among other things. It allows people to refuse treatment for mental illness, unless they are clearly a danger to someone else or themselves. It facilitated release of many patients---supposedly to go to community mental health treatment programs. Reagan's role, besides signing the bill, was using it as a reason to cut his budget. What Reagan did was, at the same time the bill was passed, to reduce the budget for state mental hospitals. His budget bill "abolished 1700 hospital staff positions and closed several of the state-operated aftercare facilities. Reagan promised to eliminate even more hospitals if the patient population continued to decline. Year-end population counts for the state hospitals had been declining by approximately 2000 people per year since 1960." This law presumed that the people released from hospitals or not committed at all would be funneled in community treatment as provided by the Short Doyle Act of 1957. It was "was designed to organize and finance community mental health services for persons with mental illness through locally administered and locally controlled community health programs." It also presumed that the mentally ill would voluntarily accept treatment if it were made available to them on a community basis. However, because of the restrictions on involuntary commitment, seriously mentally ill people who would not consent to treatment "who clearly needed treatment but did not fit the new criteria or who recycled through short term stays -- became a community dilemma. For them, there was nowhere to go." Once released, they would fail to take meds or get counseling and went right back to being seriously ill. Also, unfortunately, at the time LPS was implemented, funding for community systems either declined or was not beefed up. Many counties did not have adequate community mental health services in place and were unable to fund them. Federal funds for community mental health programs, which LPS assumed would pick up the slack, began drying up in the early 1980s, due to budget cutbacks in general. The Feds shifted funding responsibility to the states. Sources: http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~cmhsr/history.html Reform of the Lanterman, Petris, Short Act " It's not as simple as your mind thinks. (pun intended) Reagan "presumed (utter bull****) the local communities would have the wherewithal the feds were no longer going to provide. Nothing has changed except that in most communities there are even less possibilities for treatment of the indigent than when Reagan decimated the federal contributions for the larger facilities. Your spin on it is just more right-wing bull****. But, hey, that's all you have. In a few more years as you aging right-wing southern white republican bigots start dying out in greater numbers, this country might regain its ability to move forward. |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/17/2012 1:18 PM, Califbill wrote:
jps wrote: MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, who had received an A rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA) while he was in Congress, says that after last week’s massacre of 20 elementary school children that “the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant,” and he is now backing a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity clips. In an unusual commentary segment Monday on Morning Joe, Scarborough connected to the recent tragedy by noting that his own children were the age of those killed and one of his children has Asperger’s syndrome. “Politicians can no longer be allowed to defend the status quo,” he explained. “They must instead be forced to defend our children. Parents can no longer take no for an answer from Washington when the topic turns to protecting our children. The violence we see spreading from shopping malls in Oregon to movie theaters in Colorado to college campuses in Virginia to elementary schools in Connecticut — it’s being spawned by a toxic brew of popular culture, a growing mental health crisis and the proliferation of combat-style weapons.” “I am a conservative Republican who received the NRA’s highest ratings over four terms in Congress,” he continued. “I saw this debate over guns as a powerful, symbolic struggle between individual rights and government control… I’ve spent the last few days grasping for solutions and struggling for answers, while daring to question my long-held beliefs on these subjects.” Scarborough concluded: “I knew that day that the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant to the future that I want, that I demand for my children. Friday changed everything. It must change everything. We all must begin anew and demand that Washington’s old way of doing business is no longer acceptable. Entertainment moguls don’t have an absolute right to glorify murder while spreading mayhem in young minds across America. And our Bill of Rights does not guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-style, high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity magazines to whoever the hell they want. It is time for Congress to put children before deadly dogmas.” 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. According to the reports I am seeing here, he used a Bushmaster 223, and killed himself with a pistol when he heard the cops coming... But the majority of the killing was done with an assault weapon. I just don't get the assault weapon thing, even for self defense. If you are in a situation where you need 30 rounds to "defend" yourself, you are probably under pretty heavy fire, and are not gonna' get out anyway. If you can't defend yourself with 1-6 shots or so, you are over your head. 30 round clips are for offense... And I support the 2nd amendment... Went to a gun group today and saw somebody ask "why you need assault weapons" the only answer I saw was "because I can"... |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/17/2012 3:45 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:49:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: What use do assault rifles have to the average gun owner? Going to start a war? === It turns out that the "AR-15 style guns" make pretty decent hunting and target rifles. They are not truly "assault rifles" however since they can not (in most cases) fire in fully automatic mode. I agree that it's hard to justify 30 round magazines when 5 or 10 is more than adequate for hunting or target practice. The big mags do look cool however and a lot of folks want them for that reason alone. Others view them as a survival weapon if civilization as we know it breaks down. Is that far fetched? Who can say. The whole problem with this unfortunate incident in Connecticut lies with the now deceased mother. She had a child with a long history of emotional instability, taught him how to shoot, and gave him full access to her well stocked arsenal. How stupid and irresponsible is that? Totally ****in' stupid.. And you are right. There is no legit reason for those 30 clips, except to make someones penis feel bigger... |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/17/2012 3:48 PM, 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". You look at what's reasonable for defense. Like I said before, if you need clips of 30 to defend yourself, you have gotten yourself into a lot more trouble than a simple robbery or defending your home... 30 rounds is an offensive accessory, not a defensive one. |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/17/2012 4:33 PM, wrote:
On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:02:57 PM UTC-5, 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. Cite? http://www.tampabay.com/news/criminologist-says-mass-shootings-show-no-pattern-or-increase/1266381 He'll pretend he doesn't see it... even an event like this can't make this guy man up... |
Scarborough gets it right
"ESAD" wrote in message ... On 12/17/12 3:48 PM, 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". I have a lot of building trades union buddies, and a goodly number of these "hunt" deer and other critters. I don't hunt because I don't like the idea of killing Bambi or Bambi's mother, or any other helpless animal but, even though I don't think hunting is a sport, I don't begrudge my buddies their woodsy sport. I've been out stomping around in the forest and in the fields with my buddies while they hunt, though. That being said, I can't recall any of them hunting with anything but a traditional hunting rifle that holds a few rounds or a shotgun that holds a few rounds. Just one of my buddies has the time and financial wherewithal to hunt really big game, and the rifle round he prefers for that is a .375 H&H Magnum, which isn't as big a round as it sounds. Anyway, it holds a total of four rounds, including one in the chamber. Many states limit how many rounds you can have in a shotgun to three or four while hunting. Obviously, there are reasons why serious or semi-serious hunters aren't walking in the woods with semi-auto assault style rifle 30-round magazines. What's the real purpose of these semi-auto assault style rifles? To kill people, of course, and lots of them. They're not that suitable for hunting. I don't see any rational reason for rifles in calibers larger than, say, ..22LR, to be able to load up with more than a few rounds. A 22? 10-round magazine is adequate. Same with a semi-auto pistol. No reason for more than 10 rounds unless you plan to shoot up a school or a movie theater, eh? I happen to have a couple of hi-cap mags for my CZ target pistol, but I don't use them. I use the 10-rounders at the range and in competition. Oh...what might work? Making personal possession of certain firearms and certain sized mags after a certain date a violation of federal law, with serious penalties, and eliminating the gun show loophopes. No firearms transactions without paperwork and a background check. That would do for starters. ------------------------------------------ That's all fine and good and works for the vast majority of gun owners, but it doesn't answer the question of how many people can a nut case kill and have it be an "acceptable" level in terms of gun control laws. I can easily argue that *one* is one too many. As for round sizes, a .22LR can be just as deadly at short range as a larger round. In fact, some claim that a head shot with a .22 is likely to be more deadly for reasons not worth repeating. More deadly? What's that? Dead is dead. What do you mean by, "That would do for starters"? Any gun control laws that are justified as being "for starters" pretty much insinuates an eventual ban on guns period. I don't think that's the answer, nor will it ever happen. |
Scarborough gets it right
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:45:29 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:49:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: What use do assault rifles have to the average gun owner? Going to start a war? === It turns out that the "AR-15 style guns" make pretty decent hunting and target rifles. They are not truly "assault rifles" however since they can not (in most cases) fire in fully automatic mode. I agree that it's hard to justify 30 round magazines when 5 or 10 is more than adequate for hunting or target practice. The big mags do look cool however and a lot of folks want them for that reason alone. Others view them as a survival weapon if civilization as we know it breaks down. Is that far fetched? Who can say. The whole problem with this unfortunate incident in Connecticut lies with the now deceased mother. She had a child with a long history of emotional instability, taught him how to shoot, and gave him full access to her well stocked arsenal. How stupid and irresponsible is that? Tempting fate? I don't get it either. Maybe the brother will shed some light someday. The 30 round clips are riduculous. They should be outlawed. The other thing that I'm pondering is the physical attributes of the gun. I understand all the internal parts are the same as a hunting rifle but the external parts scream war. I wonder what the psychological implications of having an "assault" style weapon in your hands. Does it's style support these lunatic's assumption that they're at war with the world? Would they feel less empowered to kill if the rifle were dressed as a normal hunting rifle? This may sound simple but the human brain is open to visual cues that help synapses fire that might otherwise remain dormant. This probably isn't the group of people to discuss this with but there's a couple of folks who are intelligent enough, if it's interesting. |
Scarborough gets it right
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:18:58 -0500, ESAD wrote:
On 12/17/12 3:48 PM, 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". I have a lot of building trades union buddies, and a goodly number of these "hunt" deer and other critters. I don't hunt because I don't like the idea of killing Bambi or Bambi's mother, or any other helpless animal but, even though I don't think hunting is a sport, I don't begrudge my buddies their woodsy sport. I've been out stomping around in the forest and in the fields with my buddies while they hunt, though. That being said, I can't recall any of them hunting with anything but a traditional hunting rifle that holds a few rounds or a shotgun that holds a few rounds. Just one of my buddies has the time and financial wherewithal to hunt really big game, and the rifle round he prefers for that is a .375 H&H Magnum, which isn't as big a round as it sounds. Anyway, it holds a total of four rounds, including one in the chamber. Many states limit how many rounds you can have in a shotgun to three or four while hunting. Obviously, there are reasons why serious or semi-serious hunters aren't walking in the woods with semi-auto assault style rifle 30-round magazines. What's the real purpose of these semi-auto assault style rifles? To kill people, of course, and lots of them. They're not that suitable for hunting. I don't see any rational reason for rifles in calibers larger than, say, .22LR, to be able to load up with more than a few rounds. A 22? 10-round magazine is adequate. Same with a semi-auto pistol. No reason for more than 10 rounds unless you plan to shoot up a school or a movie theater, eh? I happen to have a couple of hi-cap mags for my CZ target pistol, but I don't use them. I use the 10-rounders at the range and in competition. Oh...what might work? Making personal possession of certain firearms and certain sized mags after a certain date a violation of federal law, with serious penalties, and eliminating the gun show loophopes. No firearms transactions without paperwork and a background check. That would do for starters. Makes sense. I just responded to Wayne with an idea about the styling of the rifle lending permission to go to war with the perceived enemy. |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/17/12 6:33 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"ESAD" wrote in message ... On 12/17/12 3:48 PM, 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". I have a lot of building trades union buddies, and a goodly number of these "hunt" deer and other critters. I don't hunt because I don't like the idea of killing Bambi or Bambi's mother, or any other helpless animal but, even though I don't think hunting is a sport, I don't begrudge my buddies their woodsy sport. I've been out stomping around in the forest and in the fields with my buddies while they hunt, though. That being said, I can't recall any of them hunting with anything but a traditional hunting rifle that holds a few rounds or a shotgun that holds a few rounds. Just one of my buddies has the time and financial wherewithal to hunt really big game, and the rifle round he prefers for that is a .375 H&H Magnum, which isn't as big a round as it sounds. Anyway, it holds a total of four rounds, including one in the chamber. Many states limit how many rounds you can have in a shotgun to three or four while hunting. Obviously, there are reasons why serious or semi-serious hunters aren't walking in the woods with semi-auto assault style rifle 30-round magazines. What's the real purpose of these semi-auto assault style rifles? To kill people, of course, and lots of them. They're not that suitable for hunting. I don't see any rational reason for rifles in calibers larger than, say, .22LR, to be able to load up with more than a few rounds. A 22? 10-round magazine is adequate. Same with a semi-auto pistol. No reason for more than 10 rounds unless you plan to shoot up a school or a movie theater, eh? I happen to have a couple of hi-cap mags for my CZ target pistol, but I don't use them. I use the 10-rounders at the range and in competition. Oh...what might work? Making personal possession of certain firearms and certain sized mags after a certain date a violation of federal law, with serious penalties, and eliminating the gun show loophopes. No firearms transactions without paperwork and a background check. That would do for starters. ------------------------------------------ That's all fine and good and works for the vast majority of gun owners, but it doesn't answer the question of how many people can a nut case kill and have it be an "acceptable" level in terms of gun control laws. I can easily argue that *one* is one too many. As for round sizes, a .22LR can be just as deadly at short range as a larger round. In fact, some claim that a head shot with a .22 is likely to be more deadly for reasons not worth repeating. More deadly? What's that? Dead is dead. What do you mean by, "That would do for starters"? Any gun control laws that are justified as being "for starters" pretty much insinuates an eventual ban on guns period. I don't think that's the answer, nor will it ever happen. I think it should be at least as difficult to get a firearm as it is to buy and register a motor scooter. Background check, paper trail, no exceptions. Period. Banning of certain types of firearms and ancillary equipment. What else? 1) States should submit their mental health records. A report from Mayors Against Illegal Guns finds “major failure by 23 states in submitting mental health records to the system, with 17 states reporting fewer than 10 records and four submitting none at all.” States can do a better job of complying with the mandate and the federal government should establish clear reporting guidelines and fund the requirement. 2) Federal agencies should submit mental records into the NICS. Following the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in January 2011, the Justice Department developed a list of “steps the government could take to expand the background-check system in order to reduce the risk of guns falling into the hands of mentally ill people and criminals,” including using “information on file at other federal agencies” to bolster the database. Currently, “52 of 61 federal agencies that are required to submit records have not done so.” This can be resolved by Executive Order 3) Full background check on all gun transactions. Since the passage of the Brady Act, gun purchasers buying firearms from federally licensed dealers are subject to background checks. As a result, more than 2 million applicants have been prohibited from purchasing guns. Unfortunately, 40 percent of firearm acquisitions are from individuals who are not licensed gun dealers and do not undergo any background checks. 4) Ban assault weapons that can hold mags of more than 10 rounds and mags that hold 10 or more rounds. Mandatory turn in for compensation. 5) Improve treatment of mental illness. It’s currently easier for a poor person to obtain a gun than it is for them to receive treatment for mental health issues, as state governments continue to cut services to balance budgets. |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/17/12 6:23 PM, JustWait wrote:
t According to the reports I am seeing here, he used a Bushmaster 223, and killed himself with a pistol when he heard the cops coming... But the majority of the killing was done with an assault weapon. I just don't get the assault weapon thing, even for self defense. If you are in a situation where you need 30 rounds to "defend" yourself, you are probably under pretty heavy fire, and are not gonna' get out anyway. If you can't defend yourself with 1-6 shots or so, you are over your head. 30 round clips are for offense... And I support the 2nd amendment... Went to a gun group today and saw somebody ask "why you need assault weapons" the only answer I saw was "because I can"... I know this is really going to bother you, but I agree completely with your post. |
Scarborough gets it right
On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:58:18 PM UTC-5, ESAD wrote:
Reagan decimated the federal contributions for the larger facilities. He had no choice. You were not paying your taxes, deadbeat. Your spin on it is just more right-wing bull****. But, hey, that's all you have. In a few more years as you aging right-wing southern white republican bigots start dying out in greater numbers, this country might regain its ability to move forward. And your spin on it is nothing more than moonbat left-wing bull****. Pay your taxes so there will be some money left after you're dead and gone for my retirement, eh, deadbeat? Did that hovel in JAX cover the bills? Why didn't the income from the shopping mall pay the bills? |
Scarborough gets it right
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:38:02 -0800, jps wrote:
I wonder what the psychological implications of having an "assault" style weapon in your hands. Does it's style support these lunatic's assumption that they're at war with the world? === I seriously doubt that the appearance of the weapon provides any inspiration or motivation. I think the primary motivation for most of these senseless killings is a suicidal death wish coupled with a desire for 15 minutes of media fame/noteriety. That desire for notoriety may also be coupled with a revenge motive for real or imagined misdeeds against them, an alienation from society in general. |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/17/2012 6:41 PM, ESAD wrote:
On 12/17/12 6:33 PM, Eisboch wrote: "ESAD" wrote in message ... On 12/17/12 3:48 PM, 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". I have a lot of building trades union buddies, and a goodly number of these "hunt" deer and other critters. I don't hunt because I don't like the idea of killing Bambi or Bambi's mother, or any other helpless animal but, even though I don't think hunting is a sport, I don't begrudge my buddies their woodsy sport. I've been out stomping around in the forest and in the fields with my buddies while they hunt, though. That being said, I can't recall any of them hunting with anything but a traditional hunting rifle that holds a few rounds or a shotgun that holds a few rounds. Just one of my buddies has the time and financial wherewithal to hunt really big game, and the rifle round he prefers for that is a .375 H&H Magnum, which isn't as big a round as it sounds. Anyway, it holds a total of four rounds, including one in the chamber. Many states limit how many rounds you can have in a shotgun to three or four while hunting. Obviously, there are reasons why serious or semi-serious hunters aren't walking in the woods with semi-auto assault style rifle 30-round magazines. What's the real purpose of these semi-auto assault style rifles? To kill people, of course, and lots of them. They're not that suitable for hunting. I don't see any rational reason for rifles in calibers larger than, say, .22LR, to be able to load up with more than a few rounds. A 22? 10-round magazine is adequate. Same with a semi-auto pistol. No reason for more than 10 rounds unless you plan to shoot up a school or a movie theater, eh? I happen to have a couple of hi-cap mags for my CZ target pistol, but I don't use them. I use the 10-rounders at the range and in competition. Oh...what might work? Making personal possession of certain firearms and certain sized mags after a certain date a violation of federal law, with serious penalties, and eliminating the gun show loophopes. No firearms transactions without paperwork and a background check. That would do for starters. ------------------------------------------ That's all fine and good and works for the vast majority of gun owners, but it doesn't answer the question of how many people can a nut case kill and have it be an "acceptable" level in terms of gun control laws. I can easily argue that *one* is one too many. As for round sizes, a .22LR can be just as deadly at short range as a larger round. In fact, some claim that a head shot with a .22 is likely to be more deadly for reasons not worth repeating. More deadly? What's that? Dead is dead. What do you mean by, "That would do for starters"? Any gun control laws that are justified as being "for starters" pretty much insinuates an eventual ban on guns period. I don't think that's the answer, nor will it ever happen. I think it should be at least as difficult to get a firearm as it is to buy and register a motor scooter. Background check, paper trail, no exceptions. Period. Banning of certain types of firearms and ancillary equipment. What else? 1) States should submit their mental health records. A report from Mayors Against Illegal Guns finds “major failure by 23 states in submitting mental health records to the system, with 17 states reporting fewer than 10 records and four submitting none at all.” States can do a better job of complying with the mandate and the federal government should establish clear reporting guidelines and fund the requirement. 2) Federal agencies should submit mental records into the NICS. Following the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in January 2011, the Justice Department developed a list of “steps the government could take to expand the background-check system in order to reduce the risk of guns falling into the hands of mentally ill people and criminals,” including using “information on file at other federal agencies” to bolster the database. Currently, “52 of 61 federal agencies that are required to submit records have not done so.” This can be resolved by Executive Order 3) Full background check on all gun transactions. Since the passage of the Brady Act, gun purchasers buying firearms from federally licensed dealers are subject to background checks. As a result, more than 2 million applicants have been prohibited from purchasing guns. Unfortunately, 40 percent of firearm acquisitions are from individuals who are not licensed gun dealers and do not undergo any background checks. 4) Ban assault weapons that can hold mags of more than 10 rounds and mags that hold 10 or more rounds. Mandatory turn in for compensation. 5) Improve treatment of mental illness. It’s currently easier for a poor person to obtain a gun than it is for them to receive treatment for mental health issues, as state governments continue to cut services to balance budgets. Can we count on you to get current with your tax liabilities to help pay for all this? |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/17/2012 6:45 PM, ESAD wrote:
On 12/17/12 6:23 PM, JustWait wrote: t According to the reports I am seeing here, he used a Bushmaster 223, and killed himself with a pistol when he heard the cops coming... But the majority of the killing was done with an assault weapon. I just don't get the assault weapon thing, even for self defense. If you are in a situation where you need 30 rounds to "defend" yourself, you are probably under pretty heavy fire, and are not gonna' get out anyway. If you can't defend yourself with 1-6 shots or so, you are over your head. 30 round clips are for offense... And I support the 2nd amendment... Went to a gun group today and saw somebody ask "why you need assault weapons" the only answer I saw was "because I can"... I know this is really going to bother you, but I agree completely with your post. but, nevertheless, you do possess several high capacity weapons. HYPOCRITE! |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/17/12 9:34 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:38:02 -0800, jps wrote: I wonder what the psychological implications of having an "assault" style weapon in your hands. Does it's style support these lunatic's assumption that they're at war with the world? === I seriously doubt that the appearance of the weapon provides any inspiration or motivation. I think the primary motivation for most of these senseless killings is a suicidal death wish coupled with a desire for 15 minutes of media fame/noteriety. That desire for notoriety may also be coupled with a revenge motive for real or imagined misdeeds against them, an alienation from society in general. Funny stuff from w'hine. |
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/17/2012 9:34 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:38:02 -0800, jps wrote: I wonder what the psychological implications of having an "assault" style weapon in your hands. Does it's style support these lunatic's assumption that they're at war with the world? === I seriously doubt that the appearance of the weapon provides any inspiration or motivation. I think the primary motivation for most of these senseless killings is a suicidal death wish coupled with a desire for 15 minutes of media fame/notoriety. That desire for notoriety may also be coupled with a revenge motive for real or imagined misdeeds against them, an alienation from society in general. I disagree on most of your points. I think the "penis" is in guns, as badly as boats, or cars.. maybe even worse. Even my girl eyeballs the black assault rifles in gun shops, "they look bad ass" and they are used to them in the shooter games.. As to the death wish ok, but the notoriety part I don't see in this one. This kid just had rage, pure and simple. As you said "revenge motive for real or imagined misdeeds against them, an alienation from society in general". But reading the reports, I don't think the guy gave a crap what others thought of him or making history, he just went on a rampage... |
Scarborough gets it right
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:34:15 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:38:02 -0800, jps wrote: I wonder what the psychological implications of having an "assault" style weapon in your hands. Does it's style support these lunatic's assumption that they're at war with the world? === I seriously doubt that the appearance of the weapon provides any inspiration or motivation. I think the primary motivation for most of these senseless killings is a suicidal death wish coupled with a desire for 15 minutes of media fame/noteriety. That desire for notoriety may also be coupled with a revenge motive for real or imagined misdeeds against them, an alienation from society in general. The kid was obviously mentally disturbed and, like the kid in Aurora, was blaming society for his situation. So much so that he couldn't differentiate a elementary age kid from the rest of society. In the absence of personal success, they choose to go out with a big bang. Although why kill themselves when they won't be around to witness the 15 minutes. I still think the optics of the assault style rifle might give lunatics a charge and fuel the permission they need to go off. |
Scarborough gets it right
ESAD wrote:
On 12/17/12 4:48 PM, wrote: On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:02:46 PM UTC-5, 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.... Stop being a liberal parrot. "The law that Reagan signed was the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), passed by the legislature & signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The idea was to "stem entry into the state hospital by encouraging the community system to accept more patients, hopefully improving quality of care while allowing state expense to be alleviated by the newly available federal funds." It also was designed to protect the rights of mental patients. It was considered a landmark of its time--a change in the attitude toward mental illness and its treatment. The law restricted involuntary commitment, among other things. It allows people to refuse treatment for mental illness, unless they are clearly a danger to someone else or themselves. It facilitated release of many patients---supposedly to go to community mental health treatment programs. Reagan's role, besides signing the bill, was using it as a reason to cut his budget. What Reagan did was, at the same time the bill was passed, to reduce the budget for state mental hospitals. His budget bill "abolished 1700 hospital staff positions and closed several of the state-operated aftercare facilities. Reagan promised to eliminate even more hospitals if the patient population continued to decline. Year-end population counts for the state hospitals had been declining by approximately 2000 people per year since 1960." This law presumed that the people released from hospitals or not committed at all would be funneled in community treatment as provided by the Short Doyle Act of 1957. It was "was designed to organize and finance community mental health services for persons with mental illness through locally administered and locally controlled community health programs." It also presumed that the mentally ill would voluntarily accept treatment if it were made available to them on a community basis. However, because of the restrictions on involuntary commitment, seriously mentally ill people who would not consent to treatment "who clearly needed treatment but did not fit the new criteria or who recycled through short term stays -- became a community dilemma. For them, there was nowhere to go." Once released, they would fail to take meds or get counseling and went right back to being seriously ill. Also, unfortunately, at the time LPS was implemented, funding for community systems either declined or was not beefed up. Many counties did not have adequate community mental health services in place and were unable to fund them. Federal funds for community mental health programs, which LPS assumed would pick up the slack, began drying up in the early 1980s, due to budget cutbacks in general. The Feds shifted funding responsibility to the states. Sources: http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~cmhsr/history.html Reform of the Lanterman, Petris, Short Act " It's not as simple as your mind thinks. (pun intended) Reagan "presumed (utter bull****) the local communities would have the wherewithal the feds were no longer going to provide. Nothing has changed except that in most communities there are even less possibilities for treatment of the indigent than when Reagan decimated the federal contributions for the larger facilities. Your spin on it is just more right-wing bull****. But, hey, that's all you have. In a few more years as you aging right-wing southern white republican bigots start dying out in greater numbers, this country might regain its ability to move forward. Bull****. Reagan just signed the bill that was passed by a Democrat controlled, liberal legislature. Same political makeup we still have, and that same legislature is still cutting the community funding even more. |
Scarborough gets it right
"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". I heard on the radio he was armed with 2 pistols. Either weapon will kill someone. And at the range he was shooting from, would not matter much. Except a rifle may be harder to aim at short range. Still comes down to what we do about children and mental problems. My daughter is a pediatric behavior therapist and one of her offices was paid from Calif Regional Center which were created when the state hospitals were emptied during Reagan's years. Now they are only covering speech and physical therapy. No mental services. And we wonder why we have nutcase problems! |
Scarborough gets it right
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.... He just went along with the desires of the Legislature and those who wanted community care. Under Reagan the community centers were funded. Under the legislature they have basically been defunded, while at the same time doubling prison guards pay. |
Scarborough gets it right
iBoaterer wrote:
In article 646115654377460069.971710bmckeenospam- , says... jps wrote: MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, who had received an A rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA) while he was in Congress, says that after last week?s massacre of 20 elementary school children that ?the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant,? and he is now backing a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity clips. In an unusual commentary segment Monday on Morning Joe, Scarborough connected to the recent tragedy by noting that his own children were the age of those killed and one of his children has Asperger?s syndrome. ?Politicians can no longer be allowed to defend the status quo,? he explained. ?They must instead be forced to defend our children. Parents can no longer take no for an answer from Washington when the topic turns to protecting our children. The violence we see spreading from shopping malls in Oregon to movie theaters in Colorado to college campuses in Virginia to elementary schools in Connecticut ? it?s being spawned by a toxic brew of popular culture, a growing mental health crisis and the proliferation of combat-style weapons.? ?I am a conservative Republican who received the NRA?s highest ratings over four terms in Congress,? he continued. ?I saw this debate over guns as a powerful, symbolic struggle between individual rights and government control? I?ve spent the last few days grasping for solutions and struggling for answers, while daring to question my long-held beliefs on these subjects.? Scarborough concluded: ?I knew that day that the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant to the future that I want, that I demand for my children. Friday changed everything. It must change everything. We all must begin anew and demand that Washington?s old way of doing business is no longer acceptable. Entertainment moguls don?t have an absolute right to glorify murder while spreading mayhem in young minds across America. And our Bill of Rights does not guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-style, high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity magazines to whoever the hell they want. It is time for Congress to put children before deadly dogmas.? 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. What use do assault rifles have to the average gun owner? Going to start a war? The 2 nd amendment was put in there to keep politicians under control. Remember that in Europe, only the lords could possess weapons. |
Scarborough gets it right
ESAD wrote:
On 12/17/12 1:18 PM, Califbill wrote: jps wrote: MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, who had received an A rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA) while he was in Congress, says that after last week’s massacre of 20 elementary school children that “the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant,” and he is now backing a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity clips. In an unusual commentary segment Monday on Morning Joe, Scarborough connected to the recent tragedy by noting that his own children were the age of those killed and one of his children has Asperger’s syndrome. “Politicians can no longer be allowed to defend the status quo,” he explained. “They must instead be forced to defend our children. Parents can no longer take no for an answer from Washington when the topic turns to protecting our children. The violence we see spreading from shopping malls in Oregon to movie theaters in Colorado to college campuses in Virginia to elementary schools in Connecticut — it’s being spawned by a toxic brew of popular culture, a growing mental health crisis and the proliferation of combat-style weapons.” “I am a conservative Republican who received the NRA’s highest ratings over four terms in Congress,” he continued. “I saw this debate over guns as a powerful, symbolic struggle between individual rights and government control… I’ve spent the last few days grasping for solutions and struggling for answers, while daring to question my long-held beliefs on these subjects.” Scarborough concluded: “I knew that day that the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant to the future that I want, that I demand for my children. Friday changed everything. It must change everything. We all must begin anew and demand that Washington’s old way of doing business is no longer acceptable. Entertainment moguls don’t have an absolute right to glorify murder while spreading mayhem in young minds across America. And our Bill of Rights does not guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-style, high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity magazines to whoever the hell they want. It is time for Congress to put children before deadly dogmas.” 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. No, Bilious, he used a .223 Bushmaster "assault-style" rifle with 30-round magazines to kill the kids and the teachers. I read reports that he was armed with two semiauto pistols. |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/18/2012 12:12 AM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote: On 12/17/12 1:18 PM, Califbill wrote: jps wrote: MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, who had received an A rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA) while he was in Congress, says that after last week’s massacre of 20 elementary school children that “the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant,” and he is now backing a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity clips. In an unusual commentary segment Monday on Morning Joe, Scarborough connected to the recent tragedy by noting that his own children were the age of those killed and one of his children has Asperger’s syndrome. “Politicians can no longer be allowed to defend the status quo,” he explained. “They must instead be forced to defend our children. Parents can no longer take no for an answer from Washington when the topic turns to protecting our children. The violence we see spreading from shopping malls in Oregon to movie theaters in Colorado to college campuses in Virginia to elementary schools in Connecticut — it’s being spawned by a toxic brew of popular culture, a growing mental health crisis and the proliferation of combat-style weapons.” “I am a conservative Republican who received the NRA’s highest ratings over four terms in Congress,” he continued. “I saw this debate over guns as a powerful, symbolic struggle between individual rights and government control… I’ve spent the last few days grasping for solutions and struggling for answers, while daring to question my long-held beliefs on these subjects.” Scarborough concluded: “I knew that day that the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant to the future that I want, that I demand for my children. Friday changed everything. It must change everything. We all must begin anew and demand that Washington’s old way of doing business is no longer acceptable. Entertainment moguls don’t have an absolute right to glorify murder while spreading mayhem in young minds across America. And our Bill of Rights does not guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-style, high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity magazines to whoever the hell they want. It is time for Congress to put children before deadly dogmas.” 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. No, Bilious, he used a .223 Bushmaster "assault-style" rifle with 30-round magazines to kill the kids and the teachers. I read reports that he was armed with two semiauto pistols. Three weapons on him, and a shotgun in the car. |
Scarborough gets it right
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com