If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Connecticut and adjacent states already have some of the toughest gun control laws in the US
"Planet Visitor II" wrote in message ... On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:21:09 -0800 (PST), mg wrote: The problem, however, is that rightwingers would never go along with it because the truth is that they don't really believe in free enterprise or personal responsibility all the much, and they're really not all that interested in solving the problem. No. They tend to hide behind someone else or pass the buck. The demand "personal responsibility" from others but as soon as they are caught with their fingers in the fudge they blame someone else. Right-wing... left-wing... as if there are no left-wing fruitcakes. Oh there are but the difference being that with leftwingers the fruitcakes are the exception wheras the right wingers are evil and sociopathic. Do we need changes in the way we both honor the constitution and honor our personal responsibility in the issue of firearms? Yes. Don't give guns to right wingers, -- J Planet Visitor II But it would be beneficial if we started teaching our children that violence is real and not an imaginary video game. Perhaps it might have actually prevented this macabre slaughter of innocent children. See --http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/adam-lanza-a-head-fu... The murderer of those children just happened to be a 20-year-old video game addict, which did not help his personality disorder, yet that is pushed under the rug by those who see only the gun and never the murderer as the real problem. Notice that I seem to be the only one even mentioning that video game violence is dangerous to our youth. Yet while giving them possession of firearms is obviously illegal, it is deemed as "sensible" to allow them to express an outlet for violence with video games such as -- 10 -- Original Carmageddon 9 -- Soldier of Fortune 8 -- God of War II 7 -- Gears of War II 6 -- Mortal Kombat! 5 -- Thrill Kill (Armed with syringes, cattle prods, severed limbs, and more, players simply beat the **** out of one another with grotesque, fetishistic and/or sexual maneuvers, always with the result of too many blood splatters to count) 4 -- Mad World (victims being splattered against the wall after being skewered on a lamppost. Or disposing of victims in a meat grinder) 3 -- Manhunt (Players sneak around in a 3-D environment and commit heinous acts of murder as part of sadistic practices such as decapitation, steel-object-to-the-brain impaling and even jamming a sickle up an unsuspecting victim's ass) 2 -- Grand Theft Auto III (the most sought after granddaddy of ultra violent gaming, including barbecuing prostitutes with flamethrowers. Total death, blood and mayhem) 1 -- Postal 2 (drop-kicking grenades and chopping up those who refuse to cooperate in the plot behind the story. Including using cat carcasses as silencers on their gun, teaching children that there is nothing wrong with killing cats and dogs and pets, which is well-known to be the common-denominator among serial killers). *** Those are only the top 10, in an arena filled with a vast quantity of different violent video games that glorify killing. But you insist they are not a problem. ***http://www.askmen.com/top_10/videoga...ent-video-game... Planet Visitor II |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Connecticut and adjacent states already have some of the toughestgun control laws in the US
On Dec 20, 9:32*pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:21:09 -0800 (PST), mg wrote: On Dec 17, 9:18*pm, Planet Visitor II wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:30:20 -0800 (PST), mg wrote: On Dec 17, 10:37 am, Planet Visitor II wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:04:40 -0800 (PST), mg wrote: On Dec 17, 2:22 am, "PJ O'D" wrote: Connecticut and adjacent states already have some of the toughest gun control laws in the US http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-guns-and-how-... "..Connecticut has one of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S. Carrying a gun onto school property is a felony there...Connecticut law prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from owning a gun; Lanza was 20 years old. Connecticut also has a "safe storage" provision that makes it a crime if a gun is accessible to a minor; Lanza was not a minor. Rifles and shotguns can be purchased without a permit, after a two-week waiting period. Handguns, on the other hand, require a permit before either purchasing or carrying them. But none of the restrictions applied; the guns were not Lanza's guns. Would stronger gun laws have stopped Lanza from killing his victims? Probably not; under Connecticut's gun laws, it was already illegal for him to possess a firearm....." You just made a really good argument for stronger gun laws. The irony, though, is that you don't understand what you just did and that's why all those beautiful children died and that's why you are responsible. Please lower your hysteria... your accusations are like claiming liberals are "responsible" for the murder of innocent children in Syria that accounts each and every day for a greater number than those innocent children murdered in Newtown. But liberals do have this belief that "our" children are more "precious" than 100 of any other country's children. We do need to feel compassion for the loss of our children's lives, but we should always remain in perspective, and as another poster here has presciently observed... it is easier to pray than to do anything constructive. And it appears that you're praying for guns to magically disappear.... expecting that praying will bring it about along with peace and tranquility for our nation. However, we still manufacture and produce toys for tots that teach them how to murder and rape and rob, and get away with it. Better we should change the MINDSET of children who are taught that killing someone will only result in a temporary loss and they will reemerge as vampires or just be magically reanimated in the next upgrade to their "Hitman: Absolution," xbox 360 game. Guess what? I've seen liberals now go off the deep end of reality and scream for taking away the weapons from every innocent person expecting that criminals will also donate theirs; but I haven't seen a single liberal in this particular mind-numbing shocking and sickening incident mention anything about teaching our young that murder is wrong, and that games which glorify killing should be taken away from them. So what should concern us more? Taking away weapons of self-defense from the innocent, expecting the guilty to just tag along... or teaching our children from a very early age that killing carries real consequences, and that games that glorify killing are what need to really be taken away. Planet Visitor II I see stuff in your post about psychology. It was intended. I see stuff in your post about my hysteria. Ibid. I see stuff in your post about keeping the importance of our children's life in perspective. Ibid. I see stuff in your post about education. Ibid. I see stuff in your post about children's toys. Ibid. I see stuff in your post about me praying for magic. Ibid. What I don't see in your post is any ideas that have any realistic chance of solving the problem. That's because you closed your eyes when it was mentioned. While you may have ignored it, nor is the idea of disarming our innocent people any realistic solution to the problem. None of your suggestions concerning education and video games, etc., are going to work and you know that. Or you certainly should. Really they're just excuses for not doing anything to solve the problem. Personally, though, I'm not a big fan of gun control, but I also don't believe that outlawing things like military-type assault weapons, or hand grenades, or bazookas, or land mines, or shoulder-fired missiles, or battle tanks, for instance, is an unwarranted restriction on anybody's freedom. Actually, my preference for solving the problem is to use our current free-enterprise system and our traditional belief in the importance of personal responsibility to solve the problem. First, I believe that all we need to do to solve most of the problem is to require everyone to buy liability insurance before they are allowed to buy a gun. They could simply add it on to their homeowners or renters insurance policy just as people typically add their dog to their insurance coverage, for instance. Second, I would make allowing someone else to use your gun(s) in the commission of a crime a serious felony that included a long jail sentence. The problem, however, is that rightwingers would never go along with it because the truth is that they don't really believe in free enterprise or personal responsibility all the much, and they're really not all that interested in solving the problem. Right-wing... left-wing... as if there are no left-wing fruitcakes. *Do we need changes in the way we both honor the constitution and honor our personal responsibility in the issue of firearms? *Of course we do! *But in doing so we should not trample on the rights of citizens, in some herd mentality stampede. *We ALWAYS make mistakes when we knee-jerk in hoping to solve deeply divisive and highly charged emotional issues, and end up taking away people's rights because of fear. *Remember McCarthy and his _communist behind every tree_ Senate hearings?? *How many lives did he ruin and even have responsibility for killing in those hearings? *Let's not use McCarthyism in believing that will solve the problem of gun control vs. the rights of citizens. Planet Visitor II I think that we are well passed the point where we have to worry about knee-jerk reactions. This is an old problem that goes back a long ways and this isn't a matter of blind fear. People have been hashing it back and forth for years while, in the meantime, people are being slaughtered. The death of the children at Sandy Hook Elementary doesn't involve blind fear. It is very real and there's nothing I know of that says that people have a right to buy military-style assault weapons. But it would be beneficial if we started teaching our children that violence is real and not an imaginary video game. Perhaps it might have actually prevented this macabre slaughter of innocent children. *See --http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/adam-lanza-a-head-fu... The murderer of those children just happened to be a 20-year-old video game addict, which did not help his personality disorder, yet that is pushed under the rug by those who see only the gun and never the murderer as the real problem. Notice that I seem to be the only one even mentioning that video game violence is dangerous to our youth. *Yet while giving them possession of firearms is obviously illegal, it is deemed as "sensible" to allow them to express an outlet for violence with video games such as -- 10 -- Original Carmageddon 9 -- Soldier of Fortune 8 -- God of War II 7 -- Gears of War II 6 -- Mortal Kombat! 5 -- Thrill Kill (Armed with syringes, cattle prods, severed limbs, and more, players simply beat the **** out of one another with grotesque, fetishistic and/or sexual maneuvers, always with the result of too many blood splatters to count) 4 -- Mad World (victims being splattered against the wall after being skewered on a lamppost. *Or disposing of victims in a meat grinder) 3 -- Manhunt (Players sneak around in a 3-D environment and commit heinous acts of murder as part of sadistic practices such as decapitation, steel-object-to-the-brain impaling and even jamming a sickle up an unsuspecting victim's ass) 2 -- Grand Theft Auto III (the most sought after granddaddy of ultra violent gaming, including barbecuing prostitutes with flamethrowers. *Total death, blood and mayhem) 1 -- Postal 2 (drop-kicking grenades and chopping up those who refuse to cooperate in the plot behind the story. *Including using cat carcasses as silencers on their gun, teaching children that there is nothing wrong with killing cats and dogs and pets, which is well-known to be the common-denominator among serial killers).. *** Those are only the top 10, in an arena filled with a vast quantity of different violent video games that glorify killing. *But you insist they are not a problem. ***http://www.askmen.com/top_10/videoga...ent-video-game... Planet Visitor II |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Connecticut and adjacent states already have some of the toughest gun control laws in the US
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:46:13 -0800 (PST), mg wrote:
On Dec 20, 9:32*pm, Planet Visitor II wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:21:09 -0800 (PST), mg wrote: On Dec 17, 9:18*pm, Planet Visitor II wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:30:20 -0800 (PST), mg wrote: On Dec 17, 10:37 am, Planet Visitor II wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:04:40 -0800 (PST), mg wrote: On Dec 17, 2:22 am, "PJ O'D" wrote: Connecticut and adjacent states already have some of the toughest gun control laws in the US http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-guns-and-how-... "..Connecticut has one of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S. Carrying a gun onto school property is a felony there...Connecticut law prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from owning a gun; Lanza was 20 years old. Connecticut also has a "safe storage" provision that makes it a crime if a gun is accessible to a minor; Lanza was not a minor. Rifles and shotguns can be purchased without a permit, after a two-week waiting period. Handguns, on the other hand, require a permit before either purchasing or carrying them. But none of the restrictions applied; the guns were not Lanza's guns. Would stronger gun laws have stopped Lanza from killing his victims? Probably not; under Connecticut's gun laws, it was already illegal for him to possess a firearm....." You just made a really good argument for stronger gun laws. The irony, though, is that you don't understand what you just did and that's why all those beautiful children died and that's why you are responsible. Please lower your hysteria... your accusations are like claiming liberals are "responsible" for the murder of innocent children in Syria that accounts each and every day for a greater number than those innocent children murdered in Newtown. But liberals do have this belief that "our" children are more "precious" than 100 of any other country's children. We do need to feel compassion for the loss of our children's lives, but we should always remain in perspective, and as another poster here has presciently observed... it is easier to pray than to do anything constructive. And it appears that you're praying for guns to magically disappear... expecting that praying will bring it about along with peace and tranquility for our nation. However, we still manufacture and produce toys for tots that teach them how to murder and rape and rob, and get away with it. Better we should change the MINDSET of children who are taught that killing someone will only result in a temporary loss and they will reemerge as vampires or just be magically reanimated in the next upgrade to their "Hitman: Absolution," xbox 360 game. Guess what? I've seen liberals now go off the deep end of reality and scream for taking away the weapons from every innocent person expecting that criminals will also donate theirs; but I haven't seen a single liberal in this particular mind-numbing shocking and sickening incident mention anything about teaching our young that murder is wrong, and that games which glorify killing should be taken away from them. So what should concern us more? Taking away weapons of self-defense from the innocent, expecting the guilty to just tag along... or teaching our children from a very early age that killing carries real consequences, and that games that glorify killing are what need to really be taken away. Planet Visitor II I see stuff in your post about psychology. It was intended. I see stuff in your post about my hysteria. Ibid. I see stuff in your post about keeping the importance of our children's life in perspective. Ibid. I see stuff in your post about education. Ibid. I see stuff in your post about children's toys. Ibid. I see stuff in your post about me praying for magic. Ibid. What I don't see in your post is any ideas that have any realistic chance of solving the problem. That's because you closed your eyes when it was mentioned. While you may have ignored it, nor is the idea of disarming our innocent people any realistic solution to the problem. None of your suggestions concerning education and video games, etc., are going to work and you know that. Or you certainly should. Really they're just excuses for not doing anything to solve the problem. Personally, though, I'm not a big fan of gun control, but I also don't believe that outlawing things like military-type assault weapons, or hand grenades, or bazookas, or land mines, or shoulder-fired missiles, or battle tanks, for instance, is an unwarranted restriction on anybody's freedom. Actually, my preference for solving the problem is to use our current free-enterprise system and our traditional belief in the importance of personal responsibility to solve the problem. First, I believe that all we need to do to solve most of the problem is to require everyone to buy liability insurance before they are allowed to buy a gun. They could simply add it on to their homeowners or renters insurance policy just as people typically add their dog to their insurance coverage, for instance. Second, I would make allowing someone else to use your gun(s) in the commission of a crime a serious felony that included a long jail sentence. The problem, however, is that rightwingers would never go along with it because the truth is that they don't really believe in free enterprise or personal responsibility all the much, and they're really not all that interested in solving the problem. Right-wing... left-wing... as if there are no left-wing fruitcakes. *Do we need changes in the way we both honor the constitution and honor our personal responsibility in the issue of firearms? *Of course we do! *But in doing so we should not trample on the rights of citizens, in some herd mentality stampede. *We ALWAYS make mistakes when we knee-jerk in hoping to solve deeply divisive and highly charged emotional issues, and end up taking away people's rights because of fear. *Remember McCarthy and his _communist behind every tree_ Senate hearings?? *How many lives did he ruin and even have responsibility for killing in those hearings? *Let's not use McCarthyism in believing that will solve the problem of gun control vs. the rights of citizens. Planet Visitor II I think that we are well passed the point where we have to worry about knee-jerk reactions. This is an old problem that goes back a long ways and this isn't a matter of blind fear. People have been hashing it back and forth for years while, in the meantime, people are being slaughtered. The death of the children at Sandy Hook Elementary doesn't involve blind fear. It is very real and there's nothing I know of that says that people have a right to buy military-style assault weapons. While I personally oppose the sale of military style assault weapons to individuals, there doesn't have to be stated that there is any particular "right" to buy those weapons. Since in a democracy what is NOT prohibited is permitted. The law determines what cannot be done... it does not determine what CAN be done. And I agree there should be a law that PROHIBITS such assault-weapon purchases. My point relates only to what are consider basic rights in a democracy. Once we start claiming that what is not prohibited in the law is STILL prohibited, we're on very shaky moral ground, and treading where theocracies and dictators like to go. Planet Visitor II But it would be beneficial if we started teaching our children that violence is real and not an imaginary video game. Perhaps it might have actually prevented this macabre slaughter of innocent children. *See --http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/adam-lanza-a-head-fu... The murderer of those children just happened to be a 20-year-old video game addict, which did not help his personality disorder, yet that is pushed under the rug by those who see only the gun and never the murderer as the real problem. Notice that I seem to be the only one even mentioning that video game violence is dangerous to our youth. *Yet while giving them possession of firearms is obviously illegal, it is deemed as "sensible" to allow them to express an outlet for violence with video games such as -- 10 -- Original Carmageddon 9 -- Soldier of Fortune 8 -- God of War II 7 -- Gears of War II 6 -- Mortal Kombat! 5 -- Thrill Kill (Armed with syringes, cattle prods, severed limbs, and more, players simply beat the **** out of one another with grotesque, fetishistic and/or sexual maneuvers, always with the result of too many blood splatters to count) 4 -- Mad World (victims being splattered against the wall after being skewered on a lamppost. *Or disposing of victims in a meat grinder) 3 -- Manhunt (Players sneak around in a 3-D environment and commit heinous acts of murder as part of sadistic practices such as decapitation, steel-object-to-the-brain impaling and even jamming a sickle up an unsuspecting victim's ass) 2 -- Grand Theft Auto III (the most sought after granddaddy of ultra violent gaming, including barbecuing prostitutes with flamethrowers. *Total death, blood and mayhem) 1 -- Postal 2 (drop-kicking grenades and chopping up those who refuse to cooperate in the plot behind the story. *Including using cat carcasses as silencers on their gun, teaching children that there is nothing wrong with killing cats and dogs and pets, which is well-known to be the common-denominator among serial killers). *** Those are only the top 10, in an arena filled with a vast quantity of different violent video games that glorify killing. *But you insist they are not a problem. ***http://www.askmen.com/top_10/videoga...ent-video-game... Planet Visitor II |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Family claims 'RAAAACISM' caused shooting in one of the bluest ofblue states of Connecticut | PJ Himselff | Europe | 3 | August 5th, 2010 12:10 AM |
The toughest travel problem - a travel supplier based in a foreigncountry | Ablang | Air travel | 0 | April 6th, 2008 02:47 AM |
Connecticut | Claire | USA & Canada | 23 | July 21st, 2004 02:15 AM |
Connecticut anyone? | charlie6 | USA & Canada | 0 | July 1st, 2004 10:18 PM |