12 killed by gunman at Batman premiere

[MaripositaII]

Originally Posted by D33RHUNT3R

Gun Sales Are Up Sharply In Colorado Since Theater Shootings : The Two-Way : NPR


Everytime the left speaks of gun controls-- Gun and ammo sales spike ..a major majority of people are against the lefts gun controls.. CCL applications are also all way up...

SO PLEASE keep up the good work...

I may have to go stock up on more ammo...


When seconds count the government is only minutes away...

I was going to write about the "type" of individual who is running out to get ammo etc., but decided it wasn't worth my time. Carry on with the lunacy and paranoia Praise be to Red Riding Hood and her GMA, I don't have any friends who think like the loonies who are stocking up

[Mnbruce]

Originally Posted by D33RHUNT3R

Gun Sales Are Up Sharply In Colorado Since Theater Shootings : The Two-Way : NPR


Everytime the left speaks of gun controls-- Gun and ammo sales spike

Yes, that's the reason! It has little to do with the people being scared to death because of another the mass murder in their state. I can somewhat understand these people being afraid and feeling the need to purchase guns. It's the ones who ran out and bought guns because they thought the president was going to try to restrict sales that I question.

[Mnbruce]

Originally Posted by ryberg

The ones to whom all these silly strawman arguments are addressed? Like this one, or Mr C's about the movie, a few posts back?

I'm just guessing!

Thanks for answering Steve. I new DH would not, because "those folks" never do.

[Jacko]

Good conversations here...

David: I’m not exactly enmeshed in the gun culture. (Though I did discover that clay pigeons are easier to hit if you shoot them before they leave the throwing machine. It’s much harder once they’re up in the air.) I’d support a ban on assault weapons. I’d support all the background checks you can imagine. I’d support a national registry so that if a young man suddenly starts buying a bunch of guns and 6,000 rounds of ammunition in one week, then a bunch of red flags get raised in police headquarters across America. I’m anti-N.R.A.

But I’m also anti the people who are anti-N.R.A. The gun lobby is terrible. The self-righteousness lobby is offensive. The ambiguity of the evidence suggests that a little modesty might be in order.

[bearcat]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Good conversations here...

David: I’m not exactly enmeshed in the gun culture. (Though I did discover that clay pigeons are easier to hit if you shoot them before they leave the throwing machine. It’s much harder once they’re up in the air.) I’d support a ban on assault weapons. I’d support all the background checks you can imagine. I’d support a national registry so that if a young man suddenly starts buying a bunch of guns and 6,000 rounds of ammunition in one week, then a bunch of red flags get raised in police headquarters across America. I’m anti-N.R.A.

But I’m also anti the people who are anti-N.R.A. The gun lobby is terrible. The self-righteousness lobby is offensive. The ambiguity of the evidence suggests that a little modesty might be in order.

Which one is it David? You can't have it both ways. By the way, Gail Collins and David Brooks, both self avowed "urbanites" and New York Times journalists, might not be the most unbiased source on gun control. Just saying.

[ProfessorPibil]

Originally Posted by StephenB

What do you want to ban next Mao...more than one kid per family?

Bloomberg is the poster boy for intrusive government. Do you seriously want to live in a society where your choices are taken away because some billionaire thinks it's good for you?

Right, first they came for the 64oz sodas and I said nothing, then they came for...

Living in a society involves giving up some choices in exchange for many benefits. You give up your choice to kill people you dislike or to forcefully take their property, and in exchange you enjoy institutionalized protections against others making those choices against you.

Coca-Cola has the choice taken away from them to sell drinks that can only lead to one outcome, and in exchange they're allowed to continue selling less harmful drinks.

Similarly, gun makers can have the choice taken away from them to sell multiple assault weapons and hundreds of rounds to civilians, and in exchange they'll be allowed to keep on making somewhat less dangerous guns.


p.s. It's kind of funny but the unregulated financial industry and the collapse it caused have effectively stopped people from having children - the number of births in the US is down by a substantial percentage since 2008 and is only beginning to recover. So your Chairman Mao is really the free market. Meanwhile, in China, it's the biggest capitalist free for all the world has seen in over a century.

[horizon200]

Originally Posted by ProfessorPibil

Right, first they came for the 64oz sodas and I said nothing, then they came for...

Living in a society involves giving up some choices in exchange for many benefits. You give up your choice to kill people you dislike or to forcefully take their property, and in exchange you enjoy institutionalized protections against others making those choices against you.

Coca-Cola has the choice taken away from them to sell drinks that can only lead to one outcome, and in exchange they're allowed to continue selling less harmful drinks.

Similarly, gun makers can have the choice taken away from them to sell multiple assault weapons and hundreds of rounds to civilians, and in exchange they'll be allowed to keep on making somewhat less dangerous guns.


p.s. It's kind of funny but the unregulated financial industry and the collapse it caused have effectively stopped people from having children - the number of births in the US is down by a substantial percentage since 2008 and is only beginning to recover. So your Chairman Mao is really the free market. Meanwhile, in China, it's the biggest capitalist free for all the world has seen in over a century.

Is that more than one assault weapon or a weapon capable of more than one assault...just for the record.

[shivors]

Originally Posted by ProfessorPibil

Right, first they came for the 64oz sodas and I said nothing, then they came for...

Living in a society involves giving up some choices in exchange for many benefits. You give up your choice to kill people you dislike or to forcefully take their property, and in exchange you enjoy institutionalized protections against others making those choices against you.

Coca-Cola has the choice taken away from them to sell drinks that can only lead to one outcome, and in exchange they're allowed to continue selling less harmful drinks.

Similarly, gun makers can have the choice taken away from them to sell multiple assault weapons and hundreds of rounds to civilians, and in exchange they'll be allowed to keep on making somewhat less dangerous guns.


p.s. It's kind of funny but the unregulated financial industry and the collapse it caused have effectively stopped people from having children - the number of births in the US is down by a substantial percentage since 2008 and is only beginning to recover. So your Chairman Mao is really the free market. Meanwhile, in China, it's the biggest capitalist free for all the world has seen in over a century.

I like you.

[STOGEY]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Good conversations here...

David: I’m not exactly enmeshed in the gun culture. (Though I did discover that clay pigeons are easier to hit if you shoot them before they leave the throwing machine. It’s much harder once they’re up in the air.) I’d support a ban on assault weapons. I’d support all the background checks you can imagine. I’d support a national registry so that if a young man suddenly starts buying a bunch of guns and 6,000 rounds of ammunition in one week, then a bunch of red flags get raised in police headquarters across America. I’m anti-N.R.A.

But I’m also anti the people who are anti-N.R.A. The gun lobby is terrible. The self-righteousness lobby is offensive. The ambiguity of the evidence suggests that a little modesty might be in order.

Should there be a national registry, for people who want to learn how to fly? That way if they want to learn how to fly and not land ,the feds will ponce right on them.

[STOGEY]

Originally Posted by ProfessorPibil

Right, first they came for the 64oz sodas and I said nothing, then they came for...

Living in a society involves giving up some choices in exchange for many benefits. You give up your choice to kill people you dislike or to forcefully take their property, and in exchange you enjoy institutionalized protections against others making those choices against you.

Coca-Cola has the choice taken away from them to sell drinks that can only lead to one outcome, and in exchange they're allowed to continue selling less harmful drinks.

Similarly, gun makers can have the choice taken away from them to sell multiple assault weapons and hundreds of rounds to civilians, and in exchange they'll be allowed to keep on making somewhat less dangerous guns.


p.s. It's kind of funny but the unregulated financial industry and the collapse it caused have effectively stopped people from having children - the number of births in the US is down by a subo if i give up my guns. I can have the added benefit of being shot by a criminal stantial percentage since 2008 and is only beginning to recover. So your Chairman Mao is really the free market. Meanwhile, in China, it's the biggest capitalist free for all the world has seen in over a century.

So if I give up my guns. I have the added benefit of being shot by a person who is a " criminal with a firearm. Instead of being able to defend myself or family or friends. That's some benefit..

[user 6507]

Originally Posted by ProfessorPibil

Right, first they came for the 64oz sodas and I said nothing, then they came for...

Living in a society involves giving up some choices in exchange for many benefits. You give up your choice to kill people you dislike or to forcefully take their property, and in exchange you enjoy institutionalized protections against others making those choices against you.

Coca-Cola has the choice taken away from them to sell drinks that can only lead to one outcome, and in exchange they're allowed to continue selling less harmful drinks.

Similarly, gun makers can have the choice taken away from them to sell multiple assault weapons and hundreds of rounds to civilians, and in exchange they'll be allowed to keep on making somewhat less dangerous guns.


p.s. It's kind of funny but the unregulated financial industry and the collapse it caused have effectively stopped people from having children - the number of births in the US is down by a substantial percentage since 2008 and is only beginning to recover. So your Chairman Mao is really the free market. Meanwhile, in China, it's the biggest capitalist free for all the world has seen in over a century.

By that flawed logic, liquor stores will be next...or customers reduced to buying one airline sized bottle per day. Bars will only be able to serve one glass of wine or beer with dinner....whatever Bloomber prescribes. We tried that once.

Good thing I know how to make it all. We'll see how the flurry of lawsuits turn out.

[ProfessorPibil]

Originally Posted by StephenB

By that flawed logic, liquor stores will be next...or customers reduced to buying one airline sized bottle per day. Bars will only be able to serve one glass of wine or beer with dinner....whatever Bloomber prescribes. We tried that once.

Good thing I know how to make it all. We'll see how the flurry of lawsuits turn out.

The logic isn't flawed as the improvements in health show.

Everyone can still buy as many 16 oz cokes as they want to.

What's flawed is that whenever someone suggests a reasonable restriction, some people equate it with an outright ban. You don't want me to drink 64 oz cokes??? Mao! You don't want me to buy three M-16s - Prohibitionist!

Nonsense.

[user 6507]

Originally Posted by ProfessorPibil

The logic isn't flawed as the improvements in health show.

Everyone can still buy as many 16 oz cokes as they want to.

What's flawed is that whenever someone suggests a reasonable restriction, some people equate it with an outright ban. You don't want me to drink 64 oz cokes??? Mao! You don't want me to buy three M-16s - Prohibitionist!

Nonsense.

As I recall, experts agreed there was about zero proof this is going to do anything. The restriction is not reasonable-what's reasonable is letting a person decide how much soda he or she wants to gulp down. I don't even like the stuff unless it is mixed with some sort of whiskey. I guess I just don't have the arrogance to think I know what's best for someone I don't even know when it comes to a chicken shit thing like this.

[Rissask]

What is really flawed is the notion that you can legislate people into being smarter.

We can, and should, legislate things like speed limits, wearing seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, minimum drinking and smoking ages, etc.


And I am all for regulation in the food industry in terms of truly dangerous additives, or humane treatment of food animals, or regulation of the so-called 'organic' food industry.


but regulating pop container sizes or things like that is getting more than a little bit intrusive and ridiculous, too....at some point you have to step back and allow for freedom of choice- there will always be stupid people making stupid choices.

[user 6507]

Originally Posted by Rissask

What is really flawed is the notion that you can legislate people into being smarter.

We can, and should, legislate things like speed limits, wearing seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, minimum drinking and smoking ages, etc.


And I am all for regulation in the food industry in terms of truly dangerous additives, or humane treatment of food animals, or regulation of the so-called 'organic' food industry.


but regulating pop container sizes or things like that is getting more than a little bit intrusive and ridiculous, too....at some point you have to step back and allow for freedom of choice- there will always be stupid people making stupid choices.

Too much sugary soda can cause obesity, diabetes, bad teeth...etc.-to the person consuming it.

Too mush alcohol can cause liver damage, suicide, fatal car crashes, air crashes, domestic abuse...etc-not only to the person consuming it but to just about to everyone else.

The proposed ban is ridiculous.