"Velveeta is more deadly than a Glock"

Alva, I can kill you with a Glock. Not so much with a Velveeta.

However, if you are contemplating suicide, by all means use the Velveeta option. The clean-up crew will thank you.

The president and the VP are trying to do something good, which will make our country safer. Which is to say, make safer gun laws so that the massacre in CT is less likely to be repeated and fewer people will die at the hands of crazed people armed with assault rifles. Most reasonable people would agree that this is appropriate and necessary. This is only about clips, magazines, drums and assault rifles that should only be used by the military. This is about teflon bullets that penetrate police officer's vests. No one finds these ideas to be interfering with people's freedom. We also need to make sure, by background checks, that the mentally ill do not gain access to these terrible weapons. No sane person should find fault with this!

Oh..........wait......Rush Limbaugh, the hateful voice of the right wing and gun lunatics, is out there selling the fear of Obama on his radio show. He's promoting lies that these people will buy right into, that the president is taking away your second amendment rights!!!! He's a dictator who wants all your guns! He'll take away your FREEDOM!!

You know, when I hear things like this, I wish I could actually leave this country. This country is being run by these hateful extremists like Rush and the rest of them. It makes me want to vomit. It just makes me so sick and so tired, and sad that because of people like Rush, the deaths of 20 little children will mean nothing.

NOTHING.

Ever add a can of rotele tomatos to velveeta? You got yourself some deadly nacho brew...

I see Rush Limbaugh as a crazed and dangerous threat to the country; nothing less. To me, his show is inciting violence.

Get this creep off the air.

Get Faux 'news' off the air as well. It should be a federal crime for a FCC licensed broadcaster to purposely disseminate false information as 'news'.

Faux 'news' is in the business to incite disharmony and discord within our citizenry to the point of overthrowing the government.

If Faux 'news' didn't have bimbos in short skirts on stools most of the old fogies hoping for an upskirt moment wouldn't be watching.

gordona,

I would love to see this right wing hate machine, this unbalanced propaganda station off the air forever. Lies and propaganda are not NEWS, FOX! They are LIES and PROPAGANDA!

Now it is, quite frankly, becoming a threat to this country. It incites violence, hate, racism, and bigotry. What is truly shameful is that Fox and Rush Limbaugh are spouting what some of the people governing this country actually BELIEVE! This mentality is slowly ruining this country.

India, that Teflon-coated bullet thing was a bunch of bull pucky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon-coated_bullet#Controversy

In reality, some calibers will pierce bullet proof vests, and some won't.

Check this out.

http://herohog.com/images/guns/ammo/all_ammo_comparison.jpg

The rounds on the top look very scary. The ones on the bottom look less scary. The rounds on the bottom are common calibers used in handguns. Most of the rounds on top are used in rifles. For instance, #14 and #16 are the bullets used in "assault" rifles like the AR-15 and the AK-47. Now look at how much bigger #49 is. Even scarier, eh? That's one of the most popular calibers used in bolt-action hunting rifles. Guess what? All three of those calibers will go through a vest.

Alva, please do not address me. I said what I meant and have nothing more to say to someone as deluded as you are.

Again, I ask, "What's the matter with you and everyone like you?" You make no sense.

Alva, you must be a card carrying NRA member afraid that "da gov'rmint" is coming after your guns? The fact is as a "developed" nation we are also one of the most deadly. The fact is there are thousands that have been killed due to gun violence every year. And how many massacres could have been prevented by removing magazines that hold 30 bullets, quite a few. Please stop equating apples & oranges and diverting from the subject, it should be beneath you.

@India

Because he uses post hoc reasoning and selective rationalization to conclude information. He's making the same error that we generally deal with when it comes to conservatives: assuming you're correct and then looking for information to affirm your position. It isn't looking at all information available and then examining the pro's and con's until coming to a reasonable conclusion given that information. It's funny because on another page he stated he's an atheist and yet here we see him engaging in the exact same mind set so many atheists accuse us Christians of engaging in when it comes to religion. Just goes to show the power of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. On a side note this is why he cannot address anyone's arguments without immediately misrepresenting them (strawman) or changing the subject to some other incident that kills people (red herring).

Well, at least Monsieur Hareng Rouge has stopped calling me a racist for saying that Malcolm X should get more credit for civil rights.

Cartoonthenews,#2.11, You are spot on, as usual.

I have an article on cognitive dissonance on my avatar page. Click on my map of the Isle of Man on my avatar and go to my home page if you are interested.

Maybe cars do kill more people than guns, but I would guess (I didn't look up the numbers) that 99% of the time, it's an accident. Can you say that about gun deaths?

Or perhaps we simply require that gun owners maintain liability insurance on their toys (and I use that term advisedly, because the debate from the "pro-gun" side is entirely about the rights and privileges of hobbyists) as it seems every state in the Union requires for automobile owners.

Sorry for the delay in responding, Alva . . . life interrupted me.

I think that whether it's accidental is very relevant. A person who causes an auto accident that kills people most likely did not go out in their car with the purpose of killing people. Most people who kill other people with guns went out with that purpose in mind.

I guess I just don't understand your point of view -- that your right to own whatever kind of firearm you desire supersedes everything else, including public safety -- and I guess I never will.

One more comment about the car thing . . .

When drunk driving became a problem, we worked to get the drunk drivers off the road. We didn't start teaching kids to dodge cars.

Trying to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them just seems to make more sense than trying to teach kids how to avoid being shot.

The "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" has already been infringed. And rightly so--

You can't buy/own poison gas cylinders, shoulder-fired-heat-seeking anti-aircraft rockets, biological weapons, or backpack atomic bombs.

I like it that way. What we are arguing about here is what needs to be added to that list.

Alva, What's the matter with you? GUNS ARE DESIGNED FOR KILLING.

Cars are designed to get people to work and to the store and to church and school.

WE HAVE safe driving laws and people are prosecuted for disobeying them.

But for the killing machines............oh no, that infringes on our FREEDOM. Can't get safer laws for guns! Can't take military assault rifles with clips and drums out of the hands of maniacs! Takes away our FREEDOM!

What fu#$ing freedom are you talking about? Freedom to watch babies and children get gunned down in the streets of America? Why isn't that the fuc#@ng freedom you are so worried about?

That's the one I AM WORRIED about!!

You say ONLY 11,000 people died from guns here last year? United Kingdom: 20! TWENTY, twenty, twenty!!!

Get over this BS.

Skippy, I certainly think that we shouldn't allow the mentally ill to have access to guns. I think all Americans should get regular physicals with their doctor, and also get regular psyche evaluations. I think this should be a basic part of health coverage for all Americans. We're already doing criminal background checks, we should do psychological background checks as well.

I'm not in favor of drunk people having access to guns either. As a gun owner, I know that if I'm not in a sound state of mind, then it's time to put the guns away. I won't touch them if I'm not sober, I won't touch them even if I haven't had enough sleep. And I certainly won't touch them on the super rare occasion when the wife and I get into a spat. Part of respecting a weapon is respecting your ability to handle it safely. If you wouldn't get behind a wheel of a car, you shouldn't put your mitts on a gun.

I'm not saying my right to own a gun supersedes everything. All I'm saying is that if we're serious about fixing this problem, then we should actually fix it instead of limiting my rights to own certain kinds of property.

If we're concerned about public safety, then what about those who die from alcohol use? Alcohol kills 14 times as many people as firearms. Yet, I'm not willing to give up beer or wine.

See, the thing is that all of us accept a certain amount of risk in everything we do. We could get struck by lightning. We could die of food poisoning. We could die in an auto accident. We could die from a heart attack from eating too much Velveeta. And we could get shot.

Now I would very much like to do whatever possible to lower the number of people who die from all these things. But the question is at what cost?

Banning guns will cost you nothing. You don't like guns, you don't own them, you could care less. But from my perspective, you're trying to take my property away because a guy with a serious mental illness used a certain kind of tool in a certain kind of crime.

The last thing I want is for another child at an elementary school to die needlessly, particularly how these poor children died at Sandy Hook. But if crazies keep killing people, it seems a little strange, if not cruel, to focus on the tools these crazies used to kill instead of the fact that they're crazy.

The United States has a mental illness rate that is three times higher than other first world nations. Have you ever noticed that almost all the world's serial killers are American? This is also the only first world nation that regularly uses the death penalty. We have more people in prison (both on a per capita basis, as well as total numbers) than any other nation on earth. We watch TV shows that celebrate cruelty like Fear Factor. We torture people we catch on the battle field. We bomb people from the sky with robots, killing unknown numbers of civilians...should any of us be surprised that given all this, some Americans go nuts and go on shooting sprees?

Focusing on the guns is, at best, putting a band-aid on the problem. And I think it is incredibly cruel and vicious to focus on a band-aid that will not work, when this problem is so deep-seeded and so great.

This is what I believe we need to address to really fix this problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw

India, you're right. Guns were designed to kill things, particularly people. That's why they were created. To kill other human beings. That's true for a revolver, for a pistol, and for an AK-47.

There are two ways guns can be used. Offensively, where a lunatic or a criminal might kill innocent bystanders. And defensively, where you can use it, often without needing to even discharge it, to protect yourself, to protect others, or to protect your family.

Guns were designed to kill. They do kill. That's why you should always respect a gun. It's not a toy. It's not a joke. You screw up once around them and you can kill somebody or kill yourself. It is deadly serious.

So like any gun can be used to kill innocent bystanders, it can also be used to save lives. If you think this sounds unreasonable, then I expect that you support that the police should universally disarm.

If you think that guns are used more often to kill innocent bystanders than they're used to save lives, then might I suggest that most of the time they don't need to be fired to save a life or to prevent a crime. In which case, that won't likely get reported, so we have no way of knowing how often it happens.

Regardless, I want to present to you a simple premise.

I am pro-choice. Why? Because I believe that your own body is yours to do what you please with. Your own life is sacrosanct. It would be inappropriate for me to dictate to you what drugs you're allowed to use because you have the right to do with your body as you please. You are the dictator of yourself, and that is just and that is moral.

As that is the case, you also have the right to defend your life. Therefore, you have the right to use whatever tools necessary to defend your life.

Does that mean that I get to own tanks or bombs? No. Those weapons can not be used defensively.

Alva, so, you're in favor of mandatory psychiatric and physical examinations of every citizen of gun bearing age as a basic coverage of healthcare? Is that what you propose? Oh, and some form of drunk testing people who are packing, too?

Wow, you are going to have HUGE problems getting those laws passed by the entire republican party & NRA card holding paranoids. Who's going to pay for these services for mankind? A tax on firearms or NRA membership perhaps?

'Banning guns will cost nothing'? Are you kidding me? Like banning pot has cost us nothing I suppose? Not that the two are related, but I couldn't find a more apt nonsensical example at the moment. I was overcome with WFT are you thinking just then.

If, as you claim, the US has a mental illness rate 3X higher than other developed nations, why should we have 10X the number of automatic, rapid fire weapons available? Your argument is counter productive.

Gordona, I don't know how you get this passed, but that's what I believe we need to do to fix this problem. We should have a national and universal health care system. The can cut costs by having people regularly see a doctor. It's preventive medicine. You get your yearly physical. We should get regular psyche evaluations too.

There is a stigma about mental health. No one looks down on you if you have high blood pressure. They do if you have a mental illness. That needs to stop. Part of the way to make it stop is for people to realize just how common mental illness is. If everyone gets a regular evaluation, that would chance things.

As a happy side benefit, this would probably result in the total disarming of every right wing gun nut in the country! ::::shush:::: just don't tell them that.

You misunderstood me. Banning guns wouldn't cost you personally anything since you (I'm guessing) don't own them. But how would you feel if we were talking about making something illegal that you owned? What if we were talking about making your car illegal? Cars kill 4 times as many people. Plus, guns don't cause global warming.

I don't think we should have so many guns in America. I'm very much in favor of gun buy backs, particularly in towns that are victims of high rates of gun violence. We should have non-stop gun buy backs in Camden and New Orleans.

But my point is that a whole host of societal problems crop up in the United States that other nations just don't experience. Why? I think the root cause is that we have the kind of poverty rates and income inequality on par with freakin' Zimbabwe.

Alva, #3.11

"Guns don't cause global warming."

Now there's an argument for having assault rifles on the street, Alva! Go back to logic 101, and try that argument on your professor!

They don't cause global warming. LOL I feel so much better now about those 33 people a day who die from guns in America. Thanks a bunch!

Sorry I thought you were a female. The histrionics confused me.

Ooops....I'm a female.

India, I live in DC metro area, and I've lived here my whole life. It's January. When I was a kid the ground was constantly frozen in January. You wouldn't get mud on your shoes until April.

You know what the local weather reports are for this weekend in the DC metro area? We're expecting temperatures in the upper 60's. In January.

I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd say that global warming is more likely to kill us all than guns are. I look at how much things have changed in just the last 5 years. I now see trees sprouting leaves in the winter, and the hottest time is no longer late August like it's always been my whole life, but now it's in early July.

That's happened here in the last 5-10 years. What will happen in the next 10 years? Or 15? Or 25?

If we don't get a handle on this problem, none of us will be here to debate the merits of gun control.

Not to mention that most states have a limit on the rounds the magazine can hold when your hunting. I don't hear the NRA whining that hunters are restricted from using 100 round clips/drums or even 30 round clips. Which proves the NRA only cares about hunting humans. Funny how most of those that don't want gun restrictions are mainly the same ones who want sex restricted. Always the double standards rich white women no restrictions on abortions poor women of all races restricted and banned. Really.

Becky, what makes you think guns made today aren't safer than guns made 100 years ago? Revolvers have no safety at all. Their "safety" is to make a trigger that's hard to pull. Glocks have FOUR internal safeties. You can throw a loaded Glock off the top of a building and it won't go off when it hits the ground.

I don't know if you realize this, but it's illegal for minors to buy guns. I believe some states don't let you buy a gun unless you're 21 years of age. To get a concealed carry license you've got to pass a test.

After '93 firearm homicides plummeted. It began to rise again in '99. What happened? The economy improved. The 90's boom happened. Then the economy went south. The economy is a bigger determining factor in how many people die from guns than any gun laws.

Becky, I don't hunt. I never have and I never will. I was a vegetarian for 13 years, a vegan for 2 years. I only stopped for health reasons. But if I did go hunting, I would take an AR-15 with me. Can I still own that? Cars kills 4 times as many people as guns, does that mean that I get to take your car away?

I don't own an automatic weapon. Automatics are a waste of ammo. But THIS is not an automatic weapon.

http://www.bushmaster.com/firearms/carbon_15.asp

It is a semi-auto tactical rifle. You know what else is semi-auto? Every pistol ever made.

I don't think that people who don't know anything about guns should make rules governing their use. I don't know how to fix cars, so I shouldn't tell a mechanic what tools he's allowed to use to fix cars. We shouldn't allow the Amish to make our traffic laws. And people who think we faked the moon landing shouldn't be in charge of NASA.

If you don't understand why I want or need a high capacity magazine, then maybe you should learn a thing or two about guns. Meanwhile, learn that normal capacity magazines are not high capacity.

The standard magazine for an AK-47 is 30 rounds. The standard magazine size for a Glock 19 is 17 rounds. The standard magazine size for a Kel-tec P-3AT (the same weapon that killed Trayvon Martin) is 6 rounds.

There are different guns for different purposes. I wouldn't want an AR-15 if a rattlesnake was in front of me, and I wouldn't want a Glock if a bear came upon me while I was camping. I wouldn't want to use a double barrel shotgun as a conceal carry firearm, and I wouldn't want to use Kahr K-9 if I was in a fire fight with multiple gunmen.

I take a lot of time and consideration in choosing a holster, which gun to use, what kind of ammo to use to make sure I can protect myself, my family, and others. I make these decisions based upon extensive study of self-defense. Why should you get to overrule me when you know jack about guns? And what you're overruling is how I'm allowed to keep myself alive.

Here we go with the "cars/trampolines/ turkey fryers/hamburgers, etc., kill people, so why not severely regulate or ban them?" crap. If any of the above-mentioned items were manufactured solely to kill or maim as many human beings as fast as possible, they would be banned immediately. The process for procuring a firearm of any type should at LEAST be as rigorous as it is for R-12 refridgerant, lead paint and asbestos.

Alva: Truly craven that you now use the "I am the expert and none of you folks know jack" card. I guess you have used literally every other one plus fifteen, so it should not be a shock. What do you mean by "standard magazine"? The "standard magazine" here in California is ten, for all the guns you mentioned, if it is the one that comes with the gun you are referring to. What a weird argument for large magazines, to try to imply that somehow a controlled size magazine is somehow non-standard. Maybe you should get a lesson with an AR15, because if a rattlesnake you should be leaving alone in the first place scares you while holding an AR15, you obviously have not shot one very much.

Alva goldbook, Please see my answer to you above: #3.7

Thank you.

Check out if she works as a lobbyist for the NRA. That could fall under "advertisement". Not allowed here, I think.

Alva says guns have enabled her to stay alive. (Where the hell does she live?) You know, most of us stay alive, gun free, for years, as far as I know. I don't feel the need to arm myself when I walk to the store. My mother lived her life out without being armed and lived a long life!

Notice how Alva doesn't address the concern of the person posting, but instead changes the subject to other things that kill and then immediately goes on a "I'm holier than thou" rant that has nothing to do with the post he's responding to or the thread.

Lebowsky, I'm aware of California's magazine capacity limit. I live in Virginia, so that doesn't apply to me. So a Glock 19 in the state of VA has a normal capacity of 17 rounds. This is the same capacity the gun was designed for. That was my only point. I've never encountered a rattlesnake, since they're not native to my home state of Virginia. I was just thinking of the rattlesnake scene in Natural Born Killers. I just re-watched that movie for the first time in about 15 years, and wow, what a great film that was.

India, not sure if you're talking about me in #5.6, but 1) I'm not a she and 2) no I don't work for the NRA. I'm not even a member. I consider them to be a bunch of right wing lunatics, who happen to give pretty good gun safety courses. Beyond that, they're useless.

Alva, PLAAAEEESE! You were a vegan, but, if you were to go hunting you'd carry an AR15 with a 30 round mag.

As much as I'd like to give someone the benefit of the doubt. . . Alva, one of those statements has to be a lie.

Some of us "Gotcha", Alva! Go lie and lobby elsewhere.

Gordona, yes, I was a vegan for 2 years. I was a vegetarian for 13 years. I personally find eating meat to be vile. I don't see the difference between eating meat and eating road kill. The thought of putting rotting flesh in my mouth makes me want to puke. Sadly, us human beings were not designed by nature to be herbivores. So I get added protein by boiling the bejesus out of chicken so it's flavorless, and I try to eat it as quickly as I can so I don't think about it.

But if I went hunting, I would love to take an AR-15 with me. Going out in the woods and shooting off a couple clips sounds like a lot of fun. Trust me, I use the term "hunting" advisably. I love animals too much to kill them. The only exception would be in self defense.

Alva

You are a truly disturbed person.

Ever hear the NRA whine about hunting weapons restricted magazine capacity, all you need to know about the NRA.

If the NRA whines about hunting weapons with restricted magazines, then they must be representing some hunters who are very poor shots. If you need a 100- round magazine to go deer hunting, then you either need glasses as thick as Coke bottles, or you should maybe stick to hunting games on the computer.

I remember hunting before the restrictions on round capacity, it wasn't unusual for someone with buck fever to unload 10 to 30 rounds at a buck and hit everything except the buck. Which is why I know people are full of it when they declare they can use their firearms for protection, it takes years of training to over come human instinct. Targets don't shoot back nor do people fear targets.

UFFdaguy, what if you're hunting elk and you find a herd heading right for you.

Question: how many times have 100 round drum magazines been used in crimes? I used to have a 100 round drum magazine. I managed to win an auction for a replica remake of the 1927 Thompson, better known as a Tommy gun. Gangsters used them all the time during prohibition. I figured it would be a really cool gun to hang up on the wall, look at while watching Goodfellas or something.

Man, was that a mistake. They don't tell ya this, but the reason why you never saw an overweight gangster is because those freaking Tommy guns weigh a ton. I hurt my back just carrying the thing around to an outdoor range.

Well the Tommy gun came with a standard stick magazine, but they don't really look like a Tommy gun unless you use the drum magazine in it. They have 50 and 100 round drum magazines.

Guess what? That gun was unbearably heavy with that drum magazine. You have any idea of how heavy 100 rounds of 45 ACP ammo is? It's like lugging a sack of bricks.

What's worse is that drum magazine would fail to feed every 3 or 4 rounds. It would jam up, and you'd have to take it out, eject a round, put it back in before you could fire again. How did these gangsters ever do their jobs, I wondered. You could arrest them with a baseball bat as often as those Tommy guns jammed!

I quickly got tired of that Tommy gun and sold it.

There is absolutely no reason for anyone to own an assault weapon.

Of course there is. We have to defend ourselves from people like you.

A herd of elk coming right at you? Man, the guide you paid (probably for a pen-raised "trophy elk") is doubtless still laughing at the way you sucked up that shinola...

Out here in the Wild West they delight in "loading Greenhorns" like you with stories like that one... Like how black bears can climb trees to eat you, and grizzlies can't so they just shake the tree until you fall out...

You're going to stop an elk with a .223? Right... Maybe a coyote or a jack rabbit, but that's all... The jack bunnies around here do grow pretty mean...

100-round mags haven't been used in any of the mass shootings as far as I remember, but 30-round clips have been, and they have done plenty of killing. No one needs them, even in the case of a herd of elk attacking you, (which I am sure is pretty unlikely). No, allowing someone to have a huge magazine in the unlikely event of a massive elk attack doesn't take precedence over preventing mass killings of our citizens by crazed gunmen.

As for the Tommy guns, it still amazes me when I think about them being used by gangsters in the 20s and 30s. Thank god we don't face machine gun-armed thugs today.

Yeah, the threat of a herd of crazed elk made my day, too. I haven't stopped laughing for five minutes! You might get charged by a boy elk protecting his turf during the rutting season, but they're solo. There's never a whole herd of them.

Again, blanks can't make a rational statement. He needs an assault weapon to protect himself from people like me? When have I made a threat against him or anyone else? Maybe I don't even own a gun. I'd say he has once again proven himself to be a paranoid, delusional individual---in other words, a typical rethug.

Alva: Herds of elk ... rattlesnakes ... bears... standard sticks ... man you lead an exciting life ...

I'd love to see the statistics on how many people die each year from stampedes of crazed elk. I have a feeling it's about as likely as getting struck by lightning at the same moment you pick the winning Powerball number while on a date with your supermodel girlfriend. If they really are such a danger, maybe the government should napalm them to prevent them from initiating such deadly stampedes.

See . . . I think Alva's just f**king with us now . . .

I was joking about the elk, but hey, you can't argue with my flawless logic. :::grins:::

My point is that firearms are tools. You don't use a hammer on a screw, guns are not a one-size-fits-all situations kind of thing. I detest shotguns. But if I lived out in the sticks somewhere, I'd probably change my mind about that.

You say there's no legitimate reason to own an AR-15 or an AK-47, and I say in my view if I were the victim of a home invasion from multiple gunmen, than the ideal weapon I would choose would be an assault rifle.

Oh, you think that would never happen?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_rz2wBYin4

There is absolutely no reason for anyone to own an assault weapon.

Of course there is. We have to defend ourselves from people like you.

Now shooter242 feels the need to protect himself from limp wristed, bleeding heart, pacifist non-gun owners.

Ask the question - just how insecure can one person be?

I was joking about the elk, but hey, you can't argue with my flawless logic. :::grins:::

No, Alva. You were lying about the elk. There's a difference.

LOL and now we've reached the pinnacle of silliness.

Scenario 1: You carry a handgun with you at all times when you leave the home in case there's an attack. You boast about how if there's a mass shooting you will be able to kill the shooter and you won't ever miss and hurt any of the other people running in front of you screaming in panic. Your accuracy is so incredible that you will one-shot-one kill this guy, never miss, and never hurt innocent bystanders.

Scenario 2: You need an AR-15 to prevent 4 guys from killing you in a home invasion because your aim is so bad that you will run out of ammo before you've been able to successfully subdue all 4 people if left to a handgun and a standard magazine. Even though you have less places to duck and cover to shoot from, you are in ridiculously closer proximity to the shooters, and the people attacking you are less likely to be wearing body army, somehow you are now in MORE dire need of an AR-15. Now it's the ideal weapon. That or an AK-47! Yeah cause if you could stop the mass shooter with 1 bullet you surely cannot stop 4 shooters with 30+!

Alva doesn't know much about herpetology, either, with that claim that rattlesnakes aren't native to Virginia.

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=030012

There are two "varieties" of Crotalus horridus found in the Commonwealth; they're classified as the same species with "Timber Rattlesnakes" being found in more mountainous areas, and "Canebrakes" in generally in wetlands. Fortunately, they're secretive animals, and a trash-talking tenderfoot like him isn't likely to encounter one and do damage to the ecosystem.

Alva....stop the BS.

gordona, how can I lie about a hypothetical? Doesn't that violate some fundamental law of physics?

SL Cabbie, a timber rattlesnake! Never knew such things existed. I thought the only poisonous snakes in Virginia were copperheads.

Of course, they live out in the Blue Ridge mountains, and I live in Northern Virginia, about 30 miles south of Washington, DC.

Alva

There are all sorts of poisonous snakes in Virgina. Look at the Virgina Herpitological Society website:

http://www.virginiaherpetologicalsociety.com/reptiles/snakes/eastern-hog-nosed-snake/eastern_hognose_snake.htm

I remeber someone telling me about running into what he thought was an escaped cobra in the Blue Ridge Mountains. It was probably the snake above.

I think they might acquiesce to a mandatory age requirement of eight years for a conceal-and-carry permit....

SL Cabbie . . . you're dreaming . . .

I I Renko, YES there are!! I Hunt do not C&C, And do not belong to the NRA. In my circle of Friend's that Hunt, of which None of them belong to the NRA, nor do they use any type of Assault Rifle. But I can say overwhelmingly that they DO support tighter restriction's, They would also rather see the Training for C&C to be more in line with what Law Enforcement Personel are required. A 12 hour class doesn't cut it for Me. When I was in the Marines, I didn't become Proficient with My Rifle overnight. When I had a Billet that involved or Authorized Deadly Force, It wasn't a Couple hr Class, Week's of Training where involved. In my view the NRA is NOT speaking for ME nor do I believe they are speaking for the Majority of it's Membership.

Sure, they can request for someone to have an evaluation. But you can't force them to. And what illnesses would be considered strong enough to fail that person? Someone with a food disorder? Depression? Bi-polar? Anxiety? 1 in 4 Americans over the age of 18 have an mental disorder.

Alex: Sounds like you are against States Rights. I do give you credit for carrying that over to womens reproductive rights.

You need to play a fair game and this is the really the one major issue where I feel the Left(mostly) plays like the Right does more often. I would appoint Ron Paul as head of the ATF and Mikal Gorbachev as head of HHS if I could have it my way.

It's not a real strong argument about the concealed carry IMHO. Obviously New York City is different from rural or even urban Texas.

Half right....concealed carry should be allowed basically anywhere where armed security isn't available. Times square and the national mall for example are reasonable secure and you don't need 15 people shooting off the concrete(The police had enough difficulty with that in a close range engagement not long ago) No armed security, no carry restrictions. Rural areas open carry is completely appropriate behavior

....you mean the media that you're quoting, but not linking to in your post? It's amazing how you make the accusation that the media isn't covering something...when you're talking about something that the media covered.

But I should also point out here that this is what your story boils down to: a cop- whom everyone agrees should be the person in charge of handling crime- stopped a crime from happening using the weapon that we, the American public, issued that cop for the purpose of stopping such events.

So the cop did her job...and somehow that's evidence that regular citizens should have a gun? You didn't think this through before you posted now did ya?

The girlfriend was not at the restaurant, and it was not clear this idiot intended to shoot people in the theater. The only person injured was the shooter. Snopes has the real story. Nice try Wyatt.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php

Heh and here you said the MSM didn't cover it? Here's CBS

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57559506/shots-fired-patrons-panic-at-san-antonio-theater/

Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/san-antonio-movie-theater-shooting_n_2315139.html

Here's MSNBC coverage:

http://nbclatino.com/2012/12/17/latina-off-duty-officer-stops-gunman-before-entering-san-antonio-movie-theater/

See it turns out the whole "the MSM didn't cover it" is a bunch of bull@!$%# meant for people who apparently only get their news from a single source or a limited number of sources.

Nice going, fellas! The truth will out. . . .

I believe there is a 50 state law which would allow off duty and retired law enforcement to carry anyway. The NRA feels this should be extended to anyone eligible to carry(I largely agree) The more pertinent story would be the thwarted Georgia home invasion or the insane rate of home invasions in the UK

Your comment doesn't make any sense Alex. We aren't discussing whether or not people have the right to defend their property. That was the stupidity of Alva bringing it up in the conversation: it has nothing to do with the topic at hand (that is why he brought it up in the first place). Someone using a gun to defend their home doesn't contribute a damn thing to this conversation. Now it might contribute if the weapon they used was an AR-15 or an AK-47 or some other assault rifle and it can be definitively proven that had they been absent these weapons they would've likely been at a greater risk for injury or death. We are also discussing the issue of whether or not extended magazines should be legal for handguns (those carrying more than 15/16 bullets at a time). Again the ONLY way the home invasion becomes relevant is if that person used an extended magazine and it can be definitively proven that said magazine was necessary for self-protection. Otherwise these are entirely pointless to bring up.

Actually the comment makes perfect sense, the string was the matter of the off duty police officer who engaged an aggressor in or around a San Antonio movie theater. Most of the talking points I've heard focus on limitation to 10 rounds not 15 or 16 in mag size. On top of that it turns my stomach that folks in states with highly restricted gun rights already seem to have no issue restricting the rights of citizens of other states.

the string was the matter of the off duty police officer who engaged an aggressor in or around a San Antonio movie theater

Correct and your response was about whether or not people should have the right to defend their home. Your response was a non-sequitur that had nothing to do with the San Antonio shooting or with off-duty police being armed to protect themselves. It had nothing to do with whether or not high capacity magazines should be available or if assault rifles should be sold to the general public. It was completely irrelevant. Thank you for agreeing with me that your comment had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Most of the talking points I've heard focus on limitation to 10 rounds not 15 or 16 in mag size

And now this is a non-sequitur within your own paragraph. What does this have to do with the issue of you believing your comment made sense initially? It's completely irrelevant what the "talking point" is unless you were going to make commentary about the talking point. I already stated in my above post that this thread was specifically focusing on whether or not a. we should ban assault rifles from the general population and/or b. we should ban high capacity magazines (any magazine for handguns carrying more than 10 rounds) from the general population. You make the statement that you heard people talking about this on a thread talking about this.... So what is your point here? You now haven't even explained why it was important to re-assert the issue that was already asserted...

On top of that it turns my stomach that folks in states with highly restricted gun rights already seem to have no issue restricting the rights of citizens of other states.

Texas doesn't have incredibly restrictive gun laws, although their laws aren't as lax as other red states (like Arizona). But you do not seem to understand that gun violence isn't local. We've already addressed this multiple times on this blog, but I guess here goes again: if the state of OK bans guns, but all the surrounding states continue to keep guns legal and easily accessible then guess what? OK's gun ban will have little to no effect on gun violence. That is because all a person has to do is drive a couple of hours to the border and purchase the gun legally. This is an interstate commerce issue, not INTRA state. So it is completely ludicrous for people to speculate that what NY state does on this issue somehow isn't directly correlated with what NJ does on this issue or any other state. You cannot argue why Texas needs to have lax gun laws as compared to New York. If the phrase gun lovers love to use so much "if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns" is actually TRUE then that means trafficking will happen. And who will do the trafficking? Why gee golly gosh! Those from the less restrictive states to the more restrictive states. This is why liberals want to discuss solutions NATIONALLY and not locally in terms of bans. Because liberals aren't moronic enough to not realize the difference between inter and intra state effects. But what does any of that have to do with the topic that you personally were responding to? This is a another non-sequitur brought up within your own damn paragraph.

Quelle apropro!

Alva,#14,

Maybe you should have thought of that 14 comments ago.

I don't want the mentally ill to be profiled are harmed either. But I think we ought to at least determine that paranoid schizophrenics and people with anti-social personality disorder aren't buying guns.

Alva

Wouldn't you bee on that database? From your comments I think you'd qualify.

An amendment to EXPAND the second amendment would have much more chance of passing than one to repeal it 50 state carry "failed" in the Senate 58(yes)-39 it has passed in the house and would have even passed the Pelosi led house in much the same matter the debt ceiling just did (it currently has over 220 cosponsors and would pass the Senate on a majority vote yesterday--maybe not right now) Its a coin flip if the president would have signed it(he wouldn't now) Had it been attached to Obamacare and Some republican votes it would already be law

Alex

You do know that the amendment process is different than the passage of ordinary legislation, don't you? An amendment to the Constitution can't be "attached" to an act like the ACA. It need 2/3 of both Houses then 3/4 of states to ratify it. Please do your homework next time.

Um...nothing looming...see Heller.

What truth about gun homicide rates was revealed here?