Discussing the WBC is discussing religion.
Advertisement
by The Emerald Dawn » Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:19 pm
by Typhlochactas » Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:21 pm
by Forsher » Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:36 pm
Samozaryadnyastan wrote:Forsher wrote:
Apparently, and this is just what I've heard, a school near me has a police station attached. Of course, our police do not have guns, I have no idea if that's true and we don't have things like this.
My school, does have a constable around for about half the week and apparently the wider town's other secondary school apparently has a larger police presence but, again, I have no idea if that's true.
While we certainly didn't have a police office attached (the only station I know of serves my area plus more, and is six miles away), though my primary school certainly did have some sort of 'neighbourhood bobby'. Came to the school like three times a month for assemblies.
Don't know if there was some kind of programme, or the guy was just friendly with the school.
by Grinning Dragon » Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:53 pm
by Gauntleted Fist » Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:54 pm
by Belkan Provinces » Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:01 pm
by The Black Forrest » Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:02 pm
Our Girl Scout family is 8 Daisies smaller now, which is a loss for us all. A message from Anna Maria Chávez, President of Girl Scouts of the USA. If you'd like to send letters to the community of Newton, CT, you can send them to: Messages of Condolence for Newtown, PO Box 3700, Newtown CT 06470 Dear Girl Scouts, I write to all of you with a heavy heart. Indeed, words cannot express the sorrow I feel over the loss of life as a result of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. I, like everyone across the country and around the world, was shocked by the terrible tragedy and have grieved for the children and educators who lost their lives, and for the entire Newtown community. On Sunday, I learned that eight of the twelve girls who died were Girl Scouts and that two Girl Scout families lost sons. The girls were Girl Scout Daisies who wore their uniforms proudly. The loss of any child brings with it an especially hollowing pain; to know that all of us in our Movement shared with those girls a love of Girl Scouting makes it all the more personal—and heartbreaking. Yet I know that all of us stand with our sisters at Girl Scouts of Connecticut as they endure with courage and strength this unspeakable tragedy, and I am heartened by the fact that we are developing girls who will lead our society to solutions and approaches that will prevent such tragedies in the decades ahead. So we forge ahead, now more than ever committed to our mission of serving girls, and we do so even as we mourn this devastating and unfathomable loss. May those who perished and their families always remain in our thoughts and prayers, especially as we gather with our own families during this holiday season. Sincerely, Anna Maria Michelle Fernando Chavez"
by The Black Forrest » Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:04 pm
Belkan Provinces wrote:Wow... the victims haven't even been buried yet and people are already using their deaths as an argument on pro/anti gun laws.
There's no respect in this country anymore.
by Belkan Provinces » Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:09 pm
by Gun Manufacturers » Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:19 pm
greed and death wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
Okay.
Ban the sale of automatic and semi-automatic weapons to all but military and police entities. Grandfather in current owners so as to avoid confiscation without due process. If an automatic or semi-automatic weapon is found to have been used in a crime, it is destroyed immediately upon conviction. Limit ammo clips and the amount of ammunition that anyone is allowed to possess at any one time. No sale or other transfer allowed by current owners. Let them wither on the vine.
Automatics are already banned and have been banned since 1984. Semi automatics are in common use and a blanket ban on them would be unconstitutional, indeed the handgun protected in Heller v. DC was a semi automatic.
We already destroy guns used in crimes after the conviction and appeals are exhausted. The guns used in this case were not previously used in a crime so it would not be related to any memorial bill.
Limiting the amount of ammo is a undue burden on the right to bear arms, further is makes people using arms in self defense less safe for society because it will be impossible to train with target and practice shooting. Further, the shooter did not posses an inordinate amount of ammunition only what would be typical for a gun owner.
The weapons were not bought through a side sale or purchase and as such an restriction on re-sale is unrelated to the current incident and can not be included in a memorial bill. Further a restriction on the right to transfer is an undue burden on the right of gun owners, and could not pass constitutional muster.
by The Zeonic States » Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:26 pm
Gun Manufacturers wrote:greed and death wrote:
Automatics are already banned and have been banned since 1984. Semi automatics are in common use and a blanket ban on them would be unconstitutional, indeed the handgun protected in Heller v. DC was a semi automatic.
We already destroy guns used in crimes after the conviction and appeals are exhausted. The guns used in this case were not previously used in a crime so it would not be related to any memorial bill.
Limiting the amount of ammo is a undue burden on the right to bear arms, further is makes people using arms in self defense less safe for society because it will be impossible to train with target and practice shooting. Further, the shooter did not posses an inordinate amount of ammunition only what would be typical for a gun owner.
The weapons were not bought through a side sale or purchase and as such an restriction on re-sale is unrelated to the current incident and can not be included in a memorial bill. Further a restriction on the right to transfer is an undue burden on the right of gun owners, and could not pass constitutional muster.
Full auto/select fire weapons aren't banned, they're restricted. Civilians can own full auto/select fire weapons manufactured and registered with ATF before May 19, 1986.
by Inky Noodles » Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:54 pm
by The Joseon Dynasty » Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:56 pm
Belkan Provinces wrote:The Black Forrest wrote:
People kind of did the same thing when we were a colony and continue to do so......
They can at least wait till these kids are buried before they use their deaths to further their own political point.
I mean these kids didn't even get to experiance that much in life, a first kiss, a first car, puking you guts out on your 21st birthday, being a father or mother, having a family etc.
But that's just me I guess
by Choronzon » Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:59 pm
by Choronzon » Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:11 pm
Belkan Provinces wrote:Wow... the victims haven't even been buried yet and people are already using their deaths as an argument on pro/anti gun laws.
There's no respect in this country anymore.
by Vitaphone Racing » Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:31 pm
Choronzon wrote:Belkan Provinces wrote:Wow... the victims haven't even been buried yet and people are already using their deaths as an argument on pro/anti gun laws.
There's no respect in this country anymore.
See what you just did there? You made a political argument. You're trying to silence debate. You are making an argument for the status quo, whether you intend to or not.
Why is talking about how to prevent a tragedy after a tragedy bad form? Or rather, why is it bad form whenever guns are involved? I'm sick of this absurd game. Its called "taking action." Its called "trying to prevent massacres in the future."
Tell me, when is the appropriate time to discuss it? We should have had this discussion after Colorado. We should have had this discussion after Representative Gifford was shot. We should have had this discussion after NIU. We should have had this discussion after Virginia Tech. Etc etc.
Parhe wrote:Guess what, maybe you don't know what it is like to be Asian.
by The Black Forrest » Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:56 pm
Choronzon wrote:The Black Forrest wrote:
That was a rather childish response.
Good selective quoting, you took out the actual statement in my post and just left the substanceless one. Probably a deliberate smear, considering who its coming from.
Seriously, whats your deal? Because if following me around and making obnoxious and substanceless comments like this one is going to be the norm for you I can just put you on "ignore" and be done with it.
Are you still pissy because I called your ass out for putting words in my mouth?
by The Black Forrest » Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:57 pm
Vitaphone Racing wrote:Choronzon wrote:See what you just did there? You made a political argument. You're trying to silence debate. You are making an argument for the status quo, whether you intend to or not.
Why is talking about how to prevent a tragedy after a tragedy bad form? Or rather, why is it bad form whenever guns are involved? I'm sick of this absurd game. Its called "taking action." Its called "trying to prevent massacres in the future."
Tell me, when is the appropriate time to discuss it? We should have had this discussion after Colorado. We should have had this discussion after Representative Gifford was shot. We should have had this discussion after NIU. We should have had this discussion after Virginia Tech. Etc etc.
You can't have this discussion in America. Any attempt at reasonable debate on the topic is blocked by the Republicans. One party is to blame for these killings.
by Kazomal » Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:12 pm
by Tubbsalot » Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:45 pm
Kazomal wrote:Maybe the answer isn't so much a ban, but the rolling in of strict regulation and controls, and a limit to the number of new guns in circulation, without depriving anyone of their current property.
by Occupied Deutschland » Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:57 pm
Vitaphone Racing wrote:Choronzon wrote:See what you just did there? You made a political argument. You're trying to silence debate. You are making an argument for the status quo, whether you intend to or not.
Why is talking about how to prevent a tragedy after a tragedy bad form? Or rather, why is it bad form whenever guns are involved? I'm sick of this absurd game. Its called "taking action." Its called "trying to prevent massacres in the future."
Tell me, when is the appropriate time to discuss it? We should have had this discussion after Colorado. We should have had this discussion after Representative Gifford was shot. We should have had this discussion after NIU. We should have had this discussion after Virginia Tech. Etc etc.
You can't have this discussion in America. Any attempt at reasonable debate on the topic is blocked by the Republicans. One party is to blame for these killings.
by Belkan Provinces » Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:23 pm
Vitaphone Racing wrote:Choronzon wrote:See what you just did there? You made a political argument. You're trying to silence debate. You are making an argument for the status quo, whether you intend to or not.
Why is talking about how to prevent a tragedy after a tragedy bad form? Or rather, why is it bad form whenever guns are involved? I'm sick of this absurd game. Its called "taking action." Its called "trying to prevent massacres in the future."
Tell me, when is the appropriate time to discuss it? We should have had this discussion after Colorado. We should have had this discussion after Representative Gifford was shot. We should have had this discussion after NIU. We should have had this discussion after Virginia Tech. Etc etc.
You can't have this discussion in America. Any attempt at reasonable debate on the topic is blocked by the Republicans. One party is to blame for these killings.
by Choronzon » Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:24 pm
The Black Forrest wrote:
Out of substance? Ok. You accuse someone of being childish and slip in a childish response.
*shrugs* We just happen to hit similar threads.
by Arumdaum » Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:41 pm
Users browsing this forum: Achan, Dimetrodon Empire, Northern Seleucia, Primitive Communism, Rary, Super Pakistan, The Rio Grande River Basin, Valentine Z, Valyxias
