Page 1 of 8 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 142
  1.    #1  
    That is what Newt Gingrich insinuated recently -

    "ABC News' Lindsay Hamilton reports: Former Speaker of the House and potential presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., speculated that concealed weapons could have mitigated the Virginia Tech massacre.

    "In states where people have been allowed to have concealed weapons, in Mississippi and Kentucky, there have been incidents of this kind of a killer who were stopped, because in fact, people who are law-abiding people, who are rational, and people who are responsible had the ability to stop them," Gingrich told ABC's George Stephanopoulos."

    Now I think Newt is an arrogant hypocrite but also find him to be pretty intelligent. The mere fact that he would say something so outrageous can only mean one thing - he is running for President and is already catering to the NRA.
  2. morrie's Avatar
    Posts
    259 Posts
    Global Posts
    265 Global Posts
    #2  
    just what we need is some fraternity boys getting drunk and shooting their 50 round glocks at each other.
    morris stalk
  3. #3  
    Duh (to the title). Folks need to connect the dots a little further back than last week.
  4. #4  
    Gosh, with that kind of post I feel like a b**kb**t. Sorry.
  5.    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter View Post
    Duh (to the title). Folks need to connect the dots a little further back than last week.
    OK, connect them for me please since I am obviously so...duh....I forgot what I was going to say....
  6. #6  
    I take you are aware that Ms. Hillary has toned down her anti-gun talk and she is not appealing only to the NRA group - she is also appealing to middle America.

    Ben
  7. #7  
    I see how if other people had guns someone could have stopped Cho. But then again, you could make the same argument for Columbine. If only they let kids have guns in high school, that tragedy could have been avoided. There will be criminals that will have guns, that's just how it is. But arming everyone else is not the solution. Without quoting any direct sources, I recall reading that plenty of other countries have the same amount of guns, or more, per capita than the US. This includes Canada. Yet the culture is different enough so that despite there being so many guns, you don't have so many gun related crimes. They say guns don't kill people, people kill people. That may be true, but guns won't stop people from killing people either, only people can do that.

    Gingrich is an ***** and is only pandering to the conservatives in hopes of running in 2008. But after his comments about Spanish, ghettos, and Jews recently, I doubt he'll go very far if he does decide to run.
  8. #8  
    I have had my carry petrmit for 15 years and you can not carry into certain biuldings and schools are one of them. Newt should investigate a little before talking.
  9.    #9  
    I like statistics. I wonder how many violent deaths have been prevented because of guns vs. how many deaths caused by accidental shootings (just picking one category)?

    Having grown up with guns, served in the military and law enforcement I can argue both sides of this pretty easily. From a practical stand point there is no doubt we are the most violent modern/industrial nation in the world. For instance I think I read that there were 5,000 children killed by guns last year in the US, while in Japan there were zero. Or if you compare the UK to the US the difference is staggering as well - I lived there for three years and can tell you a shooting is major news over there. Here in the US there has probably been at least 2 shootings as I type this so unless it's a massacre you just don't hear about it.
  10.    #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    I take you are aware that Ms. Hillary has toned down her anti-gun talk and she is not appealing only to the NRA group - she is also appealing to middle America.

    Ben
    Oh Ben...why don't you just admit you have deep sexual desires for the Clinton's and that is why obsess over them so much? Or could it be because once again you have to insert rhetoric into a thread when you having nothing intelligent to add?

    If you'd really like to discuss campaign tactics then by all means please start a new thread so we can compare notes. I'm certain that we won't find any inconsistencies (or shall I just say "lies") at all in any of the GOP candidates campaigns.
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    That is what Newt Gingrich insinuated recently -
    The answer to the question in the topic is obviously no, IMO.
    Now I think Newt is an arrogant hypocrite but also find him to be pretty intelligent. The mere fact that he would say something so outrageous can only mean one thing - he is running for President and is already catering to the NRA.
    +1
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. #12  
    I haven't done any research in this area. My gut feeling is that gun-ownership generally is down.

    That is, in colonial times didn't a higher percentage of families have a gun than as do now? In civil war times, didn't a higher percentage of families have a gun than as do now?

    In the "old west" didn't a higher percentage of familes have a gun than as do now?

    It seems as though gun ownership is generally declining, while gun violence s escalating.

    If that is the case, i think we are dealing more with the ethic/character of the people rather than the proliferation of the tool.

    Is that a "liberal" issues? Is that a "conservative" issues?

    Or, is it just a people issues?

    As to the thread topic, I'm with Toby. Liberalism is not to blame. That responsibility rests with Mr. Cho.
  13. #13  
    Let's look at it from another angle. It seems everyone knew Cho had mental problems and was a potential danger to himself and others. His teachers met to discuss just that. But their ability to respond to and act on the problem was restricted by privacy and civil liberty issues. They couldn't force him into counseling or to take drugs. They couldn't have him arrested since he hadn't made an overt threat. They couldn't discuss these issues with his parents or his roommates. Privacy and civil liberties are definitely liberal vs. conservative issues.
  14. #14  
    There's only one person responsible for that tragedy. The a-hole who did it.

  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    There's only one person responsible for that tragedy. The a-hole who did it.

    ^^Correct.^^
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    I haven't done any research in this area. My gut feeling is that gun-ownership generally is down.

    That is, in colonial times didn't a higher percentage of families have a gun than as do now? In civil war times, didn't a higher percentage of families have a gun than as do now?

    In the "old west" didn't a higher percentage of familes have a gun than as do now?

    It seems as though gun ownership is generally declining, while gun violence s escalating.

    If that is the case, i think we are dealing more with the ethic/character of the people rather than the proliferation of the tool.

    Is that a "liberal" issues? Is that a "conservative" issues?

    Or, is it just a people issues?

    As to the thread topic, I'm with Toby. Liberalism is not to blame. That responsibility rests with Mr. Cho.
    Shop, just one correction to your analysis and that it that gun homocides in the US are actually on a downward trend.
    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/region.htm

    But still the rates of gun homocides in the US are way above that of ANY OTHER developed country.
    http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_cic...y_seventh.html

    Its also sad to realize that guns kill their owners more often than anyone else (about 17,000 suicides committed with a gun every year in the US).
    http://www.suicidology.org/associati...s/2003data.pdf

    We as a society glorify violence, and we are fixated with it, in our movies, TV, video games and especially in our news media. Its unfortunate how so many people are glued to their sets for non stop coverage of these mass killings, which our news media is only happy to provide ad nauseum.
  17. #17  
    You really do get to the point of things - but that is ignorance on your part. I was just making sure that no one forgot about the Clinton's - seems like we never ever talk about the left side of the spectrum in negative terms. Left unsaid it would have been strictly what those right wingers...and you very well know it.

    Go talk about sex with someone else.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Oh Ben...why don't you just admit you have deep sexual desires for the Clinton's and that is why obsess over them so much? Or could it be because once again you have to insert rhetoric into a thread when you having nothing intelligent to add?

    If you'd really like to discuss campaign tactics then by all means please start a new thread so we can compare notes. I'm certain that we won't find any inconsistencies (or shall I just say "lies") at all in any of the GOP candidates campaigns.
  18.    #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    I was just making sure that no one forgot about the Clinton's - seems like we never ever talk about the left side of the spectrum in negative terms.
    Really? I'm pretty sure there was over $75MM in tax payer's money spent to talk (or investigate and prosecute for lying about his extra-marital affairs) negatively about the Clinton's back when he was in office.

    Left unsaid it would have been strictly what those right wingers...and you very well know it.
    Not even sure that you know what you wanted to say in this sentence....

    Go talk about sex with someone else.
    OK, I'll do it on the "consequences" thread were you didn't mind talking about it then.
  19.    #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    I haven't done any research in this area. My gut feeling is that gun-ownership generally is down.

    That is, in colonial times didn't a higher percentage of families have a gun than as do now? In civil war times, didn't a higher percentage of families have a gun than as do now?

    In the "old west" didn't a higher percentage of familes have a gun than as do now?

    It seems as though gun ownership is generally declining, while gun violence s escalating.

    If that is the case, i think we are dealing more with the ethic/character of the people rather than the proliferation of the tool.

    Is that a "liberal" issues? Is that a "conservative" issues?

    Or, is it just a people issues?

    As to the thread topic, I'm with Toby. Liberalism is not to blame. That responsibility rests with Mr. Cho.
    Well done sir. Thank you for a thoughtful reply.

    It seems that most agree this statement by Newt was a bit of a stretch.

    As far as gun control, we're probably too far gone to expect we could rid ourselves of guns. I mean, I don't know any rational person that thinks we could logistically organize an outright ban on guns whereby "they'll come knocking on your door someday to take away your gun" but that is the propoganda that the NRA spews.

    Despite my belief that the right to bear arms was intended for farmers in colonial times to be allowed to form militias to both defend our country or start all over again if the government was failing them it is still a right today - whether it has merit or not. Thus, the best we can do for the betterment of society is improve our parenting, challenge the media to deliver less violent content, and expect our government can put enforceable laws into place that upholds the spirit of the law yet keeps AK47s off the streets.
  20.    #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Let's look at it from another angle. It seems everyone knew Cho had mental problems and was a potential danger to himself and others. His teachers met to discuss just that. But their ability to respond to and act on the problem was restricted by privacy and civil liberty issues. They couldn't force him into counseling or to take drugs. They couldn't have him arrested since he hadn't made an overt threat. They couldn't discuss these issues with his parents or his roommates. Privacy and civil liberties are definitely liberal vs. conservative issues.
    Interesting perspective....

    Although I do wonder if NRA-lobbied and weakened gun laws failed to serve the public interest because this a-hole could buy the gun to begin with?
Page 1 of 8 123456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions