who gives a rats ass anyways? Are any of you going to hand in your weapons of mass destruction or will you man up and hold onto your rights?

The reason i ask is that whatever these liberal homo loving nanny state fucktards want to pass into law no matter how steenuous they mey be will you stand firm and hold onto the the infamous words "from my cold dead hands"? Or will you puss out and turn into a nice little kitten.

@legacy-fan said:

I remember this a little.

Right, but "politics" is exactly why I brought it up. Elected officials in our country that have a vendetta over the way a gun looks, with no idea as to the way it operates actually create policy in a hailstorm of misinformation. I'm sure it's not limited to this administration but to get a bill (regardless of length) for the 1st time to read over it 3 hours before it's passed is god damned terrifying. And that's the way these shitheads operate.

This is something I've been saying since the incident. Background checks work. Can they be improved? Absolutely. Should there be a way to enforce BGC's for private-private transactions? Most definitely. This is where the electorate should focus their attention. Not on "scary military looking" weapons.

I tend to agree with you.

weapons?

But boy oh boy the word assault certainly is frightening isn't it?

WSS

@heckofajobbrownie said:

There's always so much the media gets wrong with these stories. Columbine was the worst. The almost got everything wrong. Quite literally. The whole story that emerged ended up being completely untrue.

I remember this a little.

But politics aside, I think it's also a bit besides the point. Lanza didn't have to use the AR-15 to be for a ban on assault weapons ban. It was used as a reason, but it doesn't require it anymore than any of the other reforms we're talking about that wouldn't have stopped Lanza either.

Right, but "politics" is exactly why I brought it up. Elected officials in our country that have a vendetta over the way a gun looks, with no idea as to the way it operates actually create policy in a hailstorm of misinformation. I'm sure it's not limited to this administration but to get a bill (regardless of length) for the 1st time to read over it 3 hours before it's passed is god damned terrifying. And that's the way these shitheads operate.

Also, if he did try to buy guns and was denied it might make the case that background checks aren't completely useless, especially if we tighten them up. Did it make a difference here? Probably not. But you can envision a scenario where it might, or would.

This is something I've been saying since the incident. Background checks work. Can they be improved? Absolutely. Should there be a way to enforce BGC's for private-private transactions? Most definitely. This is where the electorate should focus their attention. Not on "scary military looking" weapons.

But politics aside, I think it's also a bit besides the point. Lanza didn't have to use the AR-15 to be for a ban on assault weapons ban. It was used as a reason, but it doesn't require it anymore than any of the other reforms we're talking about that wouldn't have stopped Lanza either.

Also, if he did try to buy guns and was denied it might make the case that background checks aren't completely useless, especially if we tighten them up. Did it make a difference here? Probably not. But you can envision a scenario where it might, or would.

@legacy-fan said:

Well yea, obviously it doesn't change the body count. But if the correct information was reported as widely and as feverishly as the misinformation previously was, we could reach a solution much quicker. But you've got to dig, to find this story/correction. Not on any front pages anywhere.

I just don't see what it changes at all. I think its pretty safe to say that an actual assault weapons ban will not happen, nor is the bushmaster .223 semi automatic an assault weapon. Had Lanza had a true assault weapon its tough to imagine what might have happened. The body count might have been less because automatic weapons burn through much more ammo with far less accuracy and automatic fire tends to lift the barrel further reducing accuracy especially when the shooter is physically small and relatively weak like Lanza.

@legacy-fan said:

This thread is actually for you and members of the media (Piers Morgan) that have spent the last month stapled to a "jump to conclusions" mat. Dianne Feinstein had her Assault Weapons ban proposal drafted up awfully quick in the wake of the shooting.

It's not about cracking any case. It's about understanding facts rather than contributing to the hysteria with misinformation.

I agree with you but what weapons he used is rather inconsequential to the overall point.

It's not about cracking any case. It's about understanding facts rather than contributing to the hysteria with misinformation.

It doesn't change how her gross negligence in making guns availiable to her disturbed child cost 20 small children their lives.

You're posting this as if its some home run that cracks the case of gun control proponents, which it absolutely does not.