Koko78 Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 What Militia do you belong to? The reserve militia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Gun violence is widespread and should be addressed with that in mind. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-shootings-violence-december-14-december-15-20121214,0,912168.story Shootings across the city Friday afternoon and night wounded at least ten people, according to Chicago police, including four teens in three separate South and West side attacks. Someone shot two boys, both 16, about 5:11 p.m. Friday afternoon in the 1700 block of East 71st Place in the South Shore neighborhood on the South Side. Both were taken to Comer Children's Hospital in stable condition with gunshot wounds to their legs. Two other teens were wounded Friday afternoon -- a 15-year-old near North Avenue and Lorel Avenue in the Austin neighborhood and a 16-year-old near Western Avenue and Taylor Street in the Lawndale neighborhood. A man in his 20s was in a car when someone shot him about 6:30 p.m in the 8300 block of South Maryland Avenue in the East Chatham neighborhood on the South Side, police said. He was shot in the bicep and taken to Advocate Christ Medical Center in serious condition. One man was shot in the 5400 block of South Komensky Avenue in the Archer Heights neighborhood about 8:15 p.m., police said. He was shot after chasing people who robbed his brother's store, police said. About 9 p.m. a 30-year-old man was shot near Damen and Fullerton avenues in the Logan Square community area on the North Side, police said. He walked into Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center with a gunshot wound to the lower back. He was getting in a car when someone fired from a nearby alley, police said. A 21-year-old man was shot in the left buttocks about 9:45 p.m. in the 1300 block of North California Avenue in the Humboldt Park neighborhood, police said. He was taken to Norwegian-American Hospital. He was walking on a sidewalk when someone shot him. Another person was wounded about 10 p.m. near 15th Street and Sawyer Avenue in the Lawndale neighborhood on the South Side. The 26-year-old was dropped off by friends at Mount Sinai Hospital with a gunshot wound to the buttocks, police said. Police said he "was not being particularly cooperative." A 21-year-old man was shot about 11 p.m. in the 3800 block of West 26th Street in the Little Village neighborhood on the Southwest Side, police said. He was walking with another man when he heard shots and felt pain. Police said a dark SUV was seen fleeing the area but it's not clear if it's related to the shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 (edited) That would definitely violate the First Amendment. You can't penalize a specific message. You at least need to be content-neutral. No. Not true. Not true at all. Thanks be to Obamacare and The Supremes. It's a tax. "Government can tax whatever the hell they want to." Chief Justice Roberts Their message of violence can still be promulgated from the teat of our entertainment media. But it'll cost them. If their message is so pure it should be worth the cost - no matter what the government demands they pay for it to be released to the public. While they're at it, they should tax all the violent video games as well. $10 million per title and a $250.00 tax per copy. Edited December 16, 2012 by Nanker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 No. Not true. Not true at all. Thanks be to Obamacare and The Supremes. It's a tax. "Government can tax whatever the hell they want to." Chief Justice Roberts Their message of violence can still be promulgated from the teat of our entertainment media. But it'll cost them. If their message is so pure it should be worth the cost - no matter what the government demands they pay for it to be released to the public. While they're at it, they should tax all the violent video games as well. $10 million per title and a $250.00 tax per copy. I assume you're being somewhat sarcastic. I didn't like the decision either, but that's not what it said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 I assume you're being somewhat sarcastic. I didn't like the decision either, but that's not what it said. Not entirely. By extension - the ACA provides government with the powers to tax anything they see fit. Taxing people to make them have insurance and taxing people to allow them to have access for portraying/promoting extreme violence... you tell me what's the difference? If Bloomers can ban 64 oz. soft drinks, table salt, and smoking why can't government tax the producers of media that promotes violence in their city streets? Isn't that what the objective is - reducing gun-related violence in the public sector? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 When the Big Bad Government rolls in with tanks, bombs and drones? Seriously, could there be a more ridiculous, transparent argument for 2nd Amendment rights than the "protecting ourselves from the government" argument? I'm not going to bother reading this whole thread, but just wanted to comment that you must be an exceptionally poor student of history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Not entirely. By extension - the ACA provides government with the powers to tax anything they see fit. Taxing people to make them have insurance and taxing people to allow them to have access for portraying/promoting extreme violence... you tell me what's the difference? If Bloomers can ban 64 oz. soft drinks, table salt, and smoking why can't government tax the producers of media that promotes violence in their city streets? Isn't that what the objective is - reducing gun-related violence in the public sector? Because they're not allowed to tax only one side of a message. They would have to tax anti-violence messages, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Because they're not allowed to tax only one side of a message. They would have to tax anti-violence messages, too. Ummm... No they wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Ummm... No they wouldn't. That's right, and furthermore, so what if they did? I say $1,000,000.00 per bullet fired by a non police officer or military personnel in combat and $0.01 for every anti-violence message in an ad. Don't tell me it has to be an equal tax on both sides of the issue. Don't make me laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Ummm... No they wouldn't. Yes they would. You folks do not seem to be familiar with First Amendment jurisprudence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Yes they would. You folks do not seem to be familiar with First Amendment jurisprudence. They should just tax bad movies then. We'd have a surplus in no time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Yes they would. You folks do not seem to be familiar with First Amendment jurisprudence. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 You don't have to pay a tax on the gunshots. You pay a tax penalty if you don't include a corresponding anti-gun gun message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 You guys do realize this nut case...Killed his own mother and STOLE her guns. He did not acquire them legally. Just a small little fact fact lost in the madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) You guys do realize this nut case...Killed his own mother and STOLE her guns. He did not acquire them legally. Just a small little fact fact lost in the madness. I think that fact was NOT lost on anybody. Why be a "gun enthusiast" with such a risk living in your very house! Pretty selfish and crazy if you ask me. I guess they picked the wrong hobby to get innvolved with. Anyway, that is what usually happens with these weapons... They are used and abused through internal means. This is a two part tragedy. The first is the guns were used by a family member that got a hold of them for the wrong purposes, what's new? The really sick part, he took them outside the house and committed public carnage, probably a major first. This is in no way, shape, or form like an outsider busting in and stealing said weapons and then turning them lose on the public. Maybe that is the next tragedy we deal with? I surely hope not! And some want the teachers (what Texas wants to do) able to pack heat? What happens when the teacher turns their back and the child goes for the weapon... Or they find said weapon and decide to see what it does. Bottom line guns have no place in school. Yeah, this guy was twenty... BUT given the problems, why were guns in the house in the first place. Betcha they have been around that house ever since the perp was a youngster. This was a ticking timebomb. Edited December 17, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 not having read every post in this thread....but i don't seem to see anyone mentioning that the shooter tried to buy a gun but was turned away because he didn't want to wait the mandatory 14 day wait for a background check...so the law worked and he was still able to get a gun....are more laws going to prevent another incident? I'm not a gun person, but I don't see this as a gun issue...this is a mental health issue, and frankly i am not sure who was the more 'effected' one here, the one who allegedly had autism/asbergers or the mother that had a son with these alleged issues but still kept a cache of high powered weapons in their house.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I think that fact was NOT lost on anybody. Why be a "gun enthusiast" with such a risk living in your very house! Pretty selfish and crazy if you ask me. I guess they picked the wrong hobby to get innvolved with. Anyway, that is what usually happens with these weapons... They are used and abused through internal means. This is a two part tragedy. The first is the guns were used by a family member that got a hold of them for the wrong purposes, what's new? The really sick part, he took them outside the house and committed public carnage, probably a major first. This is in no way, shape, or form like an outsider busting in and stealing said weapons and then turning them lose on the public. Maybe that is the next tragedy we deal with? I surely hope not! And some want the teachers (what Texas wants to do) able to pack heat? What happens when the teacher turns their back and the child goes for the weapon... Or they find said weapon and decide to see what it does. Bottom line guns have no place in school. Yeah, this guy was twenty... BUT given the problems, why were guns in the house in the first place. Betcha they have been around that house ever since the perp was a youngster. This was a ticking timebomb. This is what usually happens with these weapons, but it's a major first? I guess breathing diesel fumes all night doesn't lead to mental clarity. not having read every post in this thread....but i don't seem to see anyone mentioning that the shooter tried to buy a gun but was turned away because he didn't want to wait the mandatory 14 day wait for a background check...so the law worked and he was still able to get a gun....are more laws going to prevent another incident? I'm not a gun person, but I don't see this as a gun issue...this is a mental health issue, and frankly i am not sure who was the more 'effected' one here, the one who allegedly had autism/asbergers or the mother that had a son with these alleged issues but still kept a cache of high powered weapons in their house.... All she needed to do was keep them safely locked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
49er Fan Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) And some want the teachers (what Texas wants to do) able to pack heat? Yep. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, in an interview on "Fox News Sunday," defended the sale of assault weapons and said that the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School, who authorities say died trying to overtake the shooter, should herself have been armed. "I wish to God she had had an M-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn't have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands. But she takes him (the shooter) out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids," Gohmert said. Yeah, great idea. So under this clown's leadership, every school in the country - which are already completely strapped for state education funds - would have to provide weaponry and shooting training to school principals? Could you imagine the job interviews? "Tell me your background." "Well I love kids. I have three of my own, and I was vice-principal for 7 years at -" "That's fine. Can you handle a Colt M4 carbine? That's what we have at our school." Edited December 17, 2012 by 49er Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) Yep. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, in an interview on "Fox News Sunday," defended the sale of assault weapons and said that the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School, who authorities say died trying to overtake the shooter, should herself have been armed. "I wish to God she had had an M-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn't have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands. But she takes him (the shooter) out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids," Gohmert said. Yeah, great idea. So under this clown's leadership, every school in the country - which are already completely strapped for state education funds - would have to provide weaponry and shooting training to school principals? Could you imagine the job interviews? "Tell me your background." "Well I love kids. I have three of my own, and I was vice-principal for 7 years at -" "That's fine. Can you handle a Colt M4 carbine? That's what we have at our school." Brilliant. Why stop there? Let's arm the kindergartners, too. You know, I tend to lean and vote conservative, but I'm constantly amazed by the insane - I mean literally, credifiably insane - drivel that comes out of the mouth of certain politicians on the right. Evolution didn't happen. Global warming isn't happening. We need more guns, not less. Gay marriage is bad for families. The list goes on. This stuff isn't politics - it's lunacy. Edited December 17, 2012 by Coach Tuesday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Brilliant. Why stop there? Let's arm the kindergartners, too. You know, I tend to lean and vote conservative, but I'm constantly amazed by the insane - I mean literally, credifiably insane - drivel that comes out of the mouth of certain politicians on the right. Evolution didn't happen. Global warming isn't happening. We need more guns, not less. Gay marriage is bad for families. The list goes on. This stuff isn't politics - it's lunacy. Like I said, you just let me know when you can guarantee me that all guns will be removed from society, that none will be introduced by black markets in the future, that violent crime will cease to exist, and that those in positions of authority will never abuse that authority then I will gladly support a gun ban and peacefully surrender my firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts