Quote:
Originally Posted by dropnosky
"Me and my kind" lol.
|
Yes, you and your kind. The kind that demands reactionary response by the government for every single event, after the fact. You never have a plan or make a demand
before the event, because you don't have sufficient vision to determine the possible events before they occur.
I already gave you one event that will occur. A shoulder fired missile will be used to take out an airliner. But, you and your kind cannot fathom such a possibility and you make no request of the government to take away such a possibility. You simply react to events in your life.............never be proactive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dropnosky
I agree with you, but I also am willing to bet that you would be the first one screaming his head off if the same tactic of attack could be used 3 times in a row on an airline. Its easy enough to yell that nohing can be done when you don't have to be the one responsible for dealing with the results of any of this violence.
|
You would have bet wrong. The government's effort to restrict weapons on aircraft is relatively good...........but, a bit over the top at the present time. They take way too much effort on people who are clearly not a threat. It's rather humorous to see them vilified in the press for such behavior. Sometimes it has an effect...........most times not.
Note, however, that the screening for weapons was fully in place before 9/11. The people responsible for the task simply didn't do their jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dropnosky
For the record, I'm for modification and tighter national control on gun ownership, specifially tracking owneship, and id love inability to purchase ammuntion without present documentation that its for your gun you actually own.
I'm for no one owning ay dam handguns of any kind. The difference between me and 2nd amendment folk is I still see the value of compromise, and compromised modification of the second amendment is definitely in order.
|
Apparently, you've been clearly unable or unwilling to grasp two important points in the discussion:
1) Banning handguns doesn't reduce violence for a determined individual who wants to kill people. It does have some benefit to the random injuries and deaths that occur because the handgun gets into the hands of a DB or a child. The current incident is unrelated to the latter point.
2) The individual responsible for the current tragedy used a rifle. Are you now in favor of banning all rifles? If not, why not? Your reactive behavior should absolutely put you right out in front with the banner to ban all rifles. Do it........you know you must!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dropnosky
What I'm not for, Is turning the nations schools into fortresses because we are too cowardly to face the real battle that needs to be fought.
|
What battle wold that be? You wish to have a battle to ban all handguns and all rifles and all shotguns? Is that your battle? If so, I wish you good luck with that.
If not, you're a GD hypocrite.