quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

One psychopath crashes planes into buildings one day, and commercial airline travel changes forever. Definitely a double standard with firearms.

We changed the laws governing who is allowed to purchase and pilot an aircraft? Yeah, no. What we did was institute screening of passengers at airports. So if you want to be consistent, you should be calling for better screening at malls and schools and commercial venues where large numbers of people gather. Except you're not. So yeah, there's a double standard here, but you're the one proposing it.

K.

I remember as a child, my Dad receiving a gun at home he ordered through the mail. No checks on him at all except his payment. Now, I can only buy a gun from a dealer licensed by the government, in my State, after I provide paper work that includes copies of my drivers license and thumb print. Then, if I am approved I have to wait ten days before I can pick it up and take it home. Sooo...what hasn't changed about gun laws? Think about applying that to getting on an airplane. The original premiss was silly.

Jesus, you have to provide a drivers license in this free country? Shocking laws by nutsuckers. You live in a state with different laws than another state? More shocking nutsucker restrictions on your freedom.

We screen the passengers because the killers were passengers, we deny (some of it stupid) passengers on planes certain weapon like things because the killers were passengers. We check people who buy guns because the killers are people who have guns.

Guns dont kill people, people do, remember?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

"Not only that but as I pointed out the terror threat in the airplane doesn't come from the crew."

It certainly doesn't. It comes from oil companies running rampant over foreign policy for many years now.



I don't think that oil companies crashed those planes either.

It seems that they were terrorists poseing as passangers.

But hey anything that takes the blame off of Arabs, right?

Yes, the A-rabs themselves are to blame for geographically being split up and map-drawn by Britain and France and oil companies following WW I, right?

The A-rabs were themselves responsible for overthrowing democratically-elected Mohammad Mosaddegh at behest of British and American oil companies in 1953, right?

The A-rabs were themselves responsible for Britain creating and the US continually breastfeeding the most belligerent country in the region, Israel, right?

The A-rabs themselves, not the US, were responsible for secretly encouraging tiny Kuwait into overtly antagonizing much larger Iraq for no logical reason prior to the first invasion, right?

The A-rabs themselves are responsible for international terrorists Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney and Halliburton Oil, right?

With all this 100 years of 'Western influence,' when are those damn A-rabs ever going to take responsibility for themselves, damn it!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"The A-rabs themselves, not the US, were responsible for secretly encouraging tiny Kuwait into overtly antagonizing much larger Iraq for no logical reason prior to the first invasion, right? "

Kuwait was stealing sweet crude, better than their crude, from Iraq by crossdrilling.

Personally, if I were Saddam instead of attacking I would have drilled down and made holes in the pipes and pumped seawater into them. That would have fucked up their pumps and then, what the fuck could they say about it ? But Saddam was not that smart, and that is why the US installed him in Iraq. He got a little smarter later and then he all the sudden became a threat which had to be eliminated. Gimme a break, this is all bullshit.

But your statement might well be true, the US oil companies encouraged Kuwait to steal from Iraq, and it is likely the supplied the equipment to do it. In fact I would say that is an almost for sure they did.

And Hillary Clinton would say "What does it matter now ?". And if you think is was bad when Janet Reno had those people burnt to death in Waco and had that baby and Mom shot in Ruby Ridge, wait until you see the shit she will do. I can tell. She has no business even being in this country let alone holding any public office. If she was dog catcher she would probably torture the dogs.

"He had the n____ down, he had the n____ down and then he let him up". If you think democrats are not racist, you are sadly deluded. ALL rich people are racist, that is why they live in White neighborhoods. Anyone who doesn't see that is ignorant.

Anyway, come and get it. You get the lead part first. I never cared what the law said. I just don't do crimes because it is not right and I have some conscience. But I can forget that at will if provoked.

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
A passenger on a plane is not the same as a gun owner, nor is the pilot, for that matter. You missed it by grossly misinterpreting the analogy. It was about dealing with problems by addressing the cause. I've not seen where the pilots in 9/11 were the cause.

quote:

We think nothing (or at least the media don't) of greatly inconveniencing millions of passengers on a daily basis for everyday business and pleasure travel.

quote:

How much do we rely on firing a weapon for everyday purpose of basic function in 'developed' countries? How much are gun owners harassed everytime to go out for gun practice, or target practice in their backyards if they live in the country?
If talking Syria or Afghanistan, I can see it might be different.

quote:

The argument often bleated by the anti-control crowd is that "guns don't kill people," one of the most idiotic slogans ever spoken.
The whole idea behind limited access (and that's all it's ever been), is to isolate those 'innocent guns' from at least some of those less-than-innocent prospective possessors of same.
And in case you missed it, the person who fires the weapon is indeed the 'pilot,' however many thousands of less hours he has to go through to get the license. Even with that, I am not saying that a person feeling the need for that for 'home defense' expedient needs to go through what a pilot does, but we have to admit that the background check for pilots is a bit more stringent than for gun owners, training requirements (or not) aside.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
We think nothing (or at least the media don't) of greatly inconveniencing millions of passengers on a daily basis for everyday business and pleasure travel.

Maybe you think nothing of it.

quote:

The argument often bleated by the anti-control crowd is that "guns don't kill people," one of the most idiotic slogans ever spoken.
The whole idea behind limited access (and that's all it's ever been), is to isolate those 'innocent guns' from at least some of those less-than-innocent prospective possessors of same.

quote:

That's only because you don't understand the slogan. Walk into a gun store.

quote:

How many people are killed each year by "assault weapons" at the hands of civilians? What about pistols? Rifles? Shotguns?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

In the US? So then, crime has doubled in the numerous other country going the opposite direction?

Got -reliable- stats for any of that?

I did not claim crime had doubled in other countries.
Yes, in the US during a time when the number of guns in the country has doubled crime has been cut virtually in half.
Do you consider the FBI stats reliable cause that is where my info comes from?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

not surprising:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
We think nothing (or at least the media don't) of greatly inconveniencing millions of passengers on a daily basis for everyday business and pleasure travel.

Maybe you think nothing of it.

Do you insist on being the biggest dullwit on the planet? There is no one but you who would possibly interpret what I said, how I said it, as my 'thinking nothing of it.' Well OK, one or two others, maybe.

quote:

The argument often bleated by the anti-control crowd is that "guns don't kill people," one of the most idiotic slogans ever spoken.
The whole idea behind limited access (and that's all it's ever been), is to isolate those 'innocent guns' from at least some of those less-than-innocent prospective possessors of same.

quote:

That's only because you don't understand the slogan. Walk into a gun store.

So, if non-gun owners were to walk into a gun store and see all the signs saying "weapons that won't kill anybody! for sale!" we might get a better grasp of things? I'll have to check that out.

quote:

How many people are killed each year by "assault weapons" at the hands of civilians? What about pistols? Rifles? Shotguns?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

And quite a few others.

The majority of mass murders involve rifles, shotguns, military weapons of great variety.

Most 'normal' crimes or occasional defense from crime involve only hand guns.

Do you have the stats on how many homes were defended with military rifles vs. hand guns?

Oh, wait! Yes, I almost didn't get your point, there;

As long as the murders from mundane crime exceed the number of victims of mass murderers with army rifles, there's no need to regulate control of army rifles or shot guns, right? The mass murders by assault weapons, rifles, and shot guns being nothing more than a "cost of doing business" in defending the home with defensive small arms, right? So we're good to go on un-limitation of sale of large weapons by not hindering access to those any more than we limit the regular citizen looking for home defense buying a good pistol. Good to know.

"Gangsters and nut jobs are people, too!," as they say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
We think nothing (or at least the media don't) of greatly inconveniencing millions of passengers on a daily basis for everyday business and pleasure travel.

Maybe you think nothing of it.

Do you insist on being the biggest dullwit on the planet? There is no one but you who would possibly interpret what I said, how I said it, as my 'thinking nothing of it.' Well OK, one or two others, maybe.

quote:

quote:

The argument often bleated by the anti-control crowd is that "guns don't kill people," one of the most idiotic slogans ever spoken.
The whole idea behind limited access (and that's all it's ever been), is to isolate those 'innocent guns' from at least some of those less-than-innocent prospective possessors of same.

quote:

That's only because you don't understand the slogan. Walk into a gun store.

So, if non-gun owners were to walk into a gun store and see all the signs saying "weapons that won't kill anybody! for sale!" we might get a better grasp of things? I'll have to check that out.

quote:

quote:

How many people are killed each year by "assault weapons" at the hands of civilians? What about pistols? Rifles? Shotguns?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting
And quite a few others.
The majority of mass murders involve rifles, shotguns, military weapons of great variety.
Most 'normal' crimes or occasional defense from crime involve only hand guns.

quote:

Do you have the stats on how many homes were defended with military rifles vs. hand guns?

quote:

Oh, wait! Yes, I almost didn't get your point, there;
As long as the murders from mundane crime exceed the number of victims of mass murderers with army rifles, there's no need to regulate control of army rifles or shot guns, right? The mass murders by assault weapons, rifles, and shot guns being nothing more than a "cost of doing business" in defending the home with defensive small arms, right? So we're good to go on un-limitation of sale of large weapons by not hindering access to those any more than we limit the regular citizen looking for home defense buying a good pistol. Good to know.
"Gangsters and nut jobs are people, too!," as they say.

quote:

In international arms control, small arms include revolvers and pistols, rifles and carbines, assault rifles, submachine guns and light machine guns. Together with light weapons (heavy machine guns; hand-held grenade launchers; portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns; recoilless rifles; portable launchers of anti-aircraft and anti-tank missile systems; and mortars of calibres of less than 100 mm), they comprise the Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) protocol.[1][2]

According to the United Nations: "Since weapons in this class are capable of being carried, if a small arm, by one person or, if a light arm, by two or more people, a pack animal or a light vehicle, they allow for mobile operations where heavy mechanized and air forces are not available or are restricted in their capabilities owing to difficult mountain, jungle or urban terrain."

In the U.S. military, small arms are "man portable, individual, and crew-served weapon systems used mainly against personnel and lightly armored or unarmored equipment".


Bold Mine

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)