New NRA Ad Shows Their Low IQ - Will Be Their Downfall

[Ephemeris]

Oswald used a $19.95 bolt action rifle and three (some say two) bullets and was able to kill a president and wound a governor. One don't need many bullets

You'll find that most mass shooters throughout history have used guns that don't qualify as "assault weapons." Charles Whitman took down almost 50 people with a bolt action Remington that he bought out of a Sears catalog.

More recently, the "kid" shooters tend to use whatever guns their parents own- usually a 9mm. Idiots like the guy in the theater that actually did use an "assault" rifle made the classic mistake of using an extra-high capacity drum magazine which jammed almost immediately. The majority of people killed that day died from non-"assault" weapons.

The worst mass shooting in history, that one in Norway a while back that killed 80 people, was accomplished with a legally obtained .22 Ruger rifle and a 9mm Glock handgun in a country that bans assault weapons.

These three examples above were committed by ex-military members. So should the law be that anyone that serves in the military be barred from owning firearms upon discharge? Yeah, let's see how that works.

This assault weapons ban is one of the stupidest pieces of legislation to come out of this administration since the FDA and PACT Acts. The only problem is that more people are paying attention to this one, so it doubtfully won't pass.

As for armed guards in schools, i really don't have much of an opinion. I just think about the students that were saved in Columbine when the armed guard appeared on the scene. Too bad he showed up five minutes after the shooting. If I was one of the parents in the Connecticut shooting, I would be more pissed off at the school for not supplying an armed guard than I would at the firearms industry as a whole, who is expected to answer for every bad thing that someone does with one of their products.

I come from a school that had TWO armed guards. It was a big school. There was at least a shooting (student to student, usually gang related) every year. The guards made a difference; most of the kids stopped bringing guns to school. (They all switched to knives. Stabbing instances went up 300%.) So then they put FOUR armed guards at every corner of the school. Violence has decreased quite a bit, but there are still isolated incidents.

The worst thing I ever saw in school was one girl take a compass (the kind with a pencil on one end and a sharp needle in the other) and stab a girl in the neck, killing her. So the school banned compasses. But stabbings were still pretty common, they were just done with things like knives and broken glass.

My point is that no matter what you ban, there's always going to be violence, even in "enlightened" countries that have banned "assault" weapons, handguns, high capacity mags, etc. If anyone seriously thinks that the world would be a better place if this legislation was to pass, then they're probably living in a delusional fantasy world or else haven't studied up on the subject before making an informed opinion.

[SnusoMatic]

Oswald used a $19.95 bolt action rifle and three (some say two) bullets and was able to kill a president and wound a governor. One don't need many bullets

[daz]

one big .50bmg gun is sufficient to feel secure...........as long as you have many many bullets.

there fixed it for you

[Premium Parrots]

Funny stuff. Another side of it is that if someone feels they must own 20 guns to feel secure, they are very likely not the kind of person who shouldn't own any guns.

one gun is sufficient to feel secure...........as long as you have many many bullets.

[SnusoMatic]

i think while we debate gun control they are taking our guns away.

[stubby2]

I think the "General welfare" clause meant that the Federal taxes ought to be used to buy all of us a roll of General snus, and since it would be free it would be "welfare" .

aye

[Sato]

"Sane, law abiding individuals" are the only ones who are going to comply with any gun control laws, making them kind of pointless. Honestly I think this is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

[Crow]

But really, that's all irrelevant. Because in free societies, you don't have to justify owning things. You get to own them because you want them and have the means to acquire them. And you get to acquire more than just the basic necessities, if you so choose.

As I look around my office, I see a lot of stuff I don't need. There are two dogs aggressively shedding on the upholstery, a hat collection (panamas and vintage fedoras), CDs and DVDs, a shit-load of books ...If I owned only what I need, I'd be living in a spartan efficiency apartment, wearing a Mao suit and eating gruel. I have no interest in living that way.

My ability to acquire pets and stuff that I want without having to justify the acquisitions is an expression of my personal freedom. If I had to go, Stetson Stratoliner in hand, to some puffed-up bureaucrat to beg permission to purchase the boxed set of Firefly DVDs or a mutt rescue dog, I would very obviously be living in a state of severely constrained liberty. I would be unfree, even if that hard-working civil servant ultimately signed off on my acquisitions without extracting too hefty a bribe.

The appropriate answer to "Who the hell needs ... ?" is "hey, if you don't want one, don't buy it." The right to own stuff without an explanation is the right to be free.

Oh ... And Leon, all bullets are armor-piercing, depending on the armor. You might want to bone up on that, given that you're the Secretary of Defense.

J.D. Tuccille is managing editor of Reason 24/7.

That's an interesting point of view, and I can respect that.

I personally don't have any desire to own such weapons, but I respect the right for sane, law-abiding individuals to acquire semi-automatic rifles if they so choose, as it is clearly defined in the second amendment.

[Sato]

Boxed DVD sets and books don't have the ability to mow down a crowd of people 10x as efficiently as a concealed-carry pistol. That is all.

[Zimobog]

Why Does Anybody Need an Assault Weapon? Because They Want It.
J.D. Tuccille|Jan. 17, 2013 12:19 pm
Apparently doing his best to piss off the people who work for him, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta went in front of* crowd of overtly Second Amendment-supporting U.S. troops at a military base in Italy to ask why anybody "needs" assault weapons or (oddly) armor-piercing bullets. It's a question that's become a bit of a mantra for would-be restricters of personal armaments who insist on knowing what possible justification gun owners could have for possessing semi-automatic rifles that have pistol grips, or for purchasing magazines that hold more than ten seven rounds. It's also a question that seems deliberately dismissive toward the underlying principles of a free society.

As the Washington Post reported, "Defense Secretary Leon Panetta fired off a strong defense of gun control legislation Thursday, in front of a decidedly skeptical audience." Panetta's comments came after he was asked what proposals the Obama administration had in mind that "don’t have to do with tearing apart our Second Amendment." Showing the tact for which he has become famous, Panetta answered:

“Who the hell needs armor-piercing bullets except you guys in battle?” Panetta told the soldiers at the U.S. Army Garrison Vicenza in northern Italy. “For the life of me, I don’t know why the hell people have to have assault weapons.”

At this point, many self-defense activists respond that the need for guns has to do with the ability to defend against tyrannical government. Then gun controllers chirp, "but you can't defeat tanks and nuclear weapons with rifles!" thereby demonstrating that they don't keep up with the war in Afghanistan and skipped their history lessons about some difficulties the U.S. military ran into in a place called Vietnam.

But really, that's all irrelevant. Because in free societies, you don't have to justify owning things. You get to own them because you want them and have the means to acquire them. And you get to acquire more than just the basic necessities, if you so choose.

As I look around my office, I see a lot of stuff I don't need. There are two dogs aggressively shedding on the upholstery, a hat collection (panamas and vintage fedoras), CDs and DVDs, a shit-load of books ...If I owned only what I need, I'd be living in a spartan efficiency apartment, wearing a Mao suit and eating gruel. I have no interest in living that way.

My ability to acquire pets and stuff that I want without having to justify the acquisitions is an expression of my personal freedom. If I had to go, Stetson Stratoliner in hand, to some puffed-up bureaucrat to beg permission to purchase the boxed set of Firefly DVDs or a mutt rescue dog, I would very obviously be living in a state of severely constrained liberty. I would be unfree, even if that hard-working civil servant ultimately signed off on my acquisitions without extracting too hefty a bribe.

The appropriate answer to "Who the hell needs ... ?" is "hey, if you don't want one, don't buy it." The right to own stuff without an explanation is the right to be free.

Oh ... And Leon, all bullets are armor-piercing, depending on the armor. You might want to bone up on that, given that you're the Secretary of Defense.

J.D. Tuccille is managing editor of Reason 24/7.

[stubby2]

Scientists discover that no matter how many guns you own, your penis will remain small and insignificant

January 14, 2011 by William K. Wolfrum

Funny stuff. Another side of it is that if someone feels they must own 20 guns to feel secure, they are very likely not the kind of person who should own any guns.

[SnusoMatic]

i got curious as to how many murders there are in the us and what kind of weapons are used. I used stats from here http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...ime_rates.html (census and FBI data). Downloaded a spreadsheet file, added some color, adjusted things a bit so i could read it better and then made a chart. I included types of weapons used but merged two small categories into one so the chart would be readable. The two cats were something like weapon unknown and unspecified. The stats are from 2000 to 2009 but the chart is a total of all years. After I did it I thought someone on here might want to look at it.

I was mostly curious as to how many deaths are by assault weapons but that is not broken out of rifle deaths. I did not think there would be many assault weapon deaths but I was surprised by how low total rifle murder was. Rifle 2.89% was beat out by shotgun murder at 3.34% which did surprise me. Handgun murder is 50.32% which did not surprise me at all. Total firearm murder 66.53%. Percentages are to all murder. Knives 12.83%. Hands and feet 6.31%.

Numbers are my favorite because they don't lie. Well as long as the creator don't. Of course this requires some faith in government hahaha but it is the best I can find.

[Crow]

Scientists discover that no matter how many guns you own, your penis will remain small and insignificant

Hahaha!

Oh Joe... We have a lot in common (politically), except for this one issue.

Oh well, no one's perfect, eh?

[Joe234]

Scientists discover that no matter how many guns you own, your penis will remain small and insignificant

January 14, 2011 by William K. Wolfrum






SWEDEN – After a full decade of research, a team of Swedish scientists has confirmed that no matter how many guns a man owns, his penis will remain small and insignificant.


“Ve look at ze mens wit ze guns and ve look at ze penis of zeese mens,” said Dr. Sven Svenenberg of the Svenlandia Institute. “Itz veery zad. Ze penis is so wee.”


The research looked at 300 average American men who owned multiple guns. Those 300 were then weighed, measure, and found wanting. Following that, the men were then encouraged to buy even more guns over the next year. They were then were then weighed and measured again, and found wanting even more.


“Ze penis iz so wee, still,” said Dr. Svenenberg in an accent that no one could really identify. “Iz almozt of no uze. Like a wee pinkie toe.”

American scientist Tim Johnson said the research proved what has long been suspected – that owning guns for hunting and self-protection is generally a lie and that most men buy guns because they feel it will be an extension of their manhood.


“We’ve known this all along. We call it the ‘Glenn Beck Effect,’” said Johnson from his home office in Tupelo, Miss. “Not long ago, a Wikileaks document emerged showing a naked picture of Beck. Dude’s hung like a pimple on a pimple. Then all of a sudden you start seeing the guy show up holding guns.”

Still, some have called the research misleading. Ron Schmeits, President of the NRA said that the problem was that the men in the research sample were not encouraged to buy enough guns.


“These small men will get larger if they own more guns,” said Schmeits, handing out checks to Republican congressmen on the steps of the nation’s capital. “They need pistols and shotguns and guns that have guns attached to them and guns that shoot guns. That will fix them right up.”
But Dr. Svenenberg stood by his research.


“Zey are so wee, it’z almozt to make me to laugh,” said Dr. Svenenberg. “But no. I don’t to laugh. Iz zad. Zo veery zad.”
–WKW

[texasmade]

Police: Hug triggers officer's gun, kills woman

Detroit police say a woman was fatally shot when she hugged an off-duty police officer while dancing at a party, causing the officer's service weapon to fire.

(Excerpt) Read more at kare11.com ...

How does hugging someone from behind cause a holstered firearm to discharge and at such an angle that it kills the person doing the hugging?