Guns For All?? Gun 'Regulation'?? What Do You Say?

[YaelTheGreat]

Every president is the definition of a successful sociopath. They murder thousands without a legitimate care. They rob money that sustains life for petty unnecessary luxuries. They are sociopaths, they are just successful and have adapted to their environment.

[1871]

Quote:Lazarus
Assange is an active criminal. I'm an active criminal. Eugene Debbs was an active criminal. Your friend who pirated music collection was an active criminal.

An active criminal as in one who has committed violent acts. Idiot.

http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk/Threa...#pid163572

quote;


Congress gives gun industry a lawsuit shield updated 10/20/2005 3:27:00 PM ET

President Bush expected to sign bill following approval by House



WASHINGTON — Congress gave the gun lobby its top legislative priority Thursday, passing a bill that would protect the firearms industry from massive lawsuits brought by crime victims. The White House says President Bush will sign it into law.

Other political news of note
Romney rallies top donors with Utah retreat
After two days of meetings, meals and hobnobbing with Mitt Romney and top Republicans, at a Park City, Utah, resort, the candidates top donors say they are fired up and ready to go.

The House voted 283-144 to send the bill to the president after supporters, led by the National Rifle Association, proclaimed it vital to protect the industry from being bankrupted by huge jury awards. Opponents, waging a tough battle against growing public support for the legislation, called it proof of the gun lobby’s power over the Republican-controlled Congress.

Under the measure, about 20 pending lawsuits by local governments against the industry would be dismissed. The Senate passed the bill in July.

The bill’s passage was the NRA’s top legislative priority and would give Bush and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill a rare victory at a time when some top GOP leaders are under indictment or investigation.

“Lawsuits seeking to hold the firearms industry responsible for the criminal and unlawful use of its products are brazen attempts to accomplish through litigation what has not been achieved by legislation and the democratic process,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., told his colleagues.

Katrina momentum

Propelled by GOP election gains and the incidents of lawlessness associated with the passing of Hurricane Katrina, support for the bill has grown since a similar measure passed the House last year and was killed in the Senate.

Horrific images of people without the protection of public safety in New Orleans made a particular impression on viewers who had never before felt unsafe, according to the gun lobby.

“Americans saw a complete collapse of the government’s ability to protect them,” said Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive vice president.

“That burnt in, those pictures of people standing there defending their lives and defending their property and their family,” he added, “where the one source of comfort was a firearm.”*

With support from new Republicans who arrived for this session of Congress, the bill passed the Senate for the first time in July. House passage never was in doubt because it had 257 co-sponsors, far more than the 218 needed to pass.

The bill’s authors say the bill still allows civil suits against individual parties who have been found guilty of criminal wrongdoing by the courts.

Critics cite D.C. sniper

Opponents say the strength of the bill’s support is testament to the influence of the gun lobby. If the bill had been law when the relatives of six victims of convicted Washington-area snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo sued the gun dealer from which they obtained their rifle, the dealer would not have agreed to pay the families and victims $2.5 million, they said.

“It is shameful that Republicans in Congress are pushing legislation that guarantees their gun-dealing cronies receive special treatment and are above the law,” said Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Calif.

The Brady Campaign, which campaigns to control firearms, said it would challenge the legislation’s constitutionality in court.

Dennis Henigan, director of the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project, said, “This shameful law will not stand. We will challenge the constitutionality of this special interest extravaganza in every court where the rights of gun violence victims are being threatened.”

“This bill is an unprecedented attack on the due process rights of victims injured by the misconduct of an industry that seeks to escape the legal rules that govern the rest of us,” he added.

Product lawsuits still allowed
Bush has said he supports the bill, which would prohibit lawsuits against the firearms industry for damages resulting from the unlawful use of a firearm or ammunition. Gun makers and dealers still would be subject to product liability, negligence or breach of contract suits, the bill’s authors say.

Democrats and Republicans alike court the NRA at election time, and the bill has garnered bipartisan support. But the firearms industry still gave 88 percent of its campaign contributions, or $1.2 million, to Republicans in the 2004 election cycle.

Gun control advocates, meanwhile, gave 98 percent of their contributions, or $93,700, to Democrats that cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9762564/ns/p...it-shield/

* from other owners of firearms -1871

Colleges Are Safest With No Guns
Jess Coleman

Colleges Are Safest With No Guns


Texas Governor Rick Perry, who likes to carry around a gun as he jogs, is attempting to push through state legislation that would allow students to carry guns on college campuses. The legislation is getting heat from Perry’s own party as Republican State Senator Jeff Wentworth says he doesn’t “want to see repeated on a Texas college campus what happened at Virginia Tech.”

The logic may sound simple: To stop gun violence, let’s give everyone a gun. The first argument for guns in any setting comes from the debate over the Second Amendment. Many believe they have a constitutional right to hold a gun. But the founders hardly had that in mind. The Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Last I checked students are not part of a militia. The only “well-regulated” militia that exists currently in the U.S. is the National Guard; there is no longer a militia made up of regular citizens as there was in 1776. And, students' carrying guns is hardly “necessary to the security of a free State.” A random student holding a gun at the University of Texas does nothing for my freedom here in New York.

The argument that guns act as a deterrent is absurd. As Wentworth mentioned, the killer at Virginia Tech was a “deranged, suicidal madman.” That kind of person will surely not be scared of students with guns, especially considering he planned to kill himself anyway.

Another logical approach would be to ensure “deranged madmen” do not end up with firearms.

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) proposed a plan to close loopholes and make it more difficult for drug abusers and addicts to obtain firearms. But fellow PolicyMic columnist Jason Orr calls this an “assault on liberty,” a clear indication that some are more concerned with advancing a pro-gun agenda than they are with promoting safety.

Frankly, if you want to prevent murder on college campuses, shouldn’t your focus be on eliminating guns altogether? It is questionable how many deaths, if any, could have been prevented if the right student just happened to have a gun during the shooting at Virginia Tech. It is indisputable, however, that if no one had a gun that day, no one would have died.

John Woods, a survivor of the Virginia Tech shootings and one of the founders of Students for Gun-Free Schools, points out that even if his girlfriend, who died in the shootings, had a gun, there is little chance she would have killed the shooter.

Ensuring that a gun won’t end up in the hands of a murderer is a far safer approach than hoping a student will come to the rescue.

Allowing every student to hold a gun would also make policing nearly impossible. After a shooting at the University of Arizona in 2002, Anthony Daykin, the police chief at the school, said his job would have been nearly impossible if he arrived at the school to find hundreds of students holding, pointing, and possibly shooting guns at one another.

Clearly, allowing more weapons will not increase safety, but significantly decrease it.

"There is no scenario where allowing concealed weapons on college campuses will do anything other than create a more dangerous environment for students, faculty, staff, and visitors," said Oklahoma Chancellor of Higher Education Glen Johnson in January.

People died at Virginia Tech because someone was able to get their hands on a gun. What makes anyone think, then, that more guns is the answer? Yes, if everyone has a gun, it’s possible less people will die. But if no one has a gun, no one will die.


http://www.policymic.com/articles/1312/c...th-no-guns

[shakur420]

^lol, you really feel the need to call people shit like "idiot", etc. on a regular? It makes you sound like a 14 year old sitting in his mom's basement. There was no obvious implication that dude meant "violent" criminals.



Anyways, I was wrong, Chomsky does say something about the violent natures of revolutions and how there may be a correlation to the way those societies are afterwards. Don't know if I'd heard him say it back then, when we were having this convo, but I've heard him say it since.

[1871]

(06-25-2012 03:27 PM)shakur420 Wrote:  ^lol, you really feel the need to call people shit like "idiot", etc. on a regular? It makes you sound like a 14 year old sitting in his mom's basement. There was no obvious implication that dude meant "violent" criminals.

and tjhats from someone who goes round calling people 'bitch'. i dont use the phrase on a regular basis only for appropriate occasions. he said;

Quote:I personally think certain people shouldn't have them for example active criminals and diagnosed sociopaths especially.

it was quite clear what he meant. he wasnt talking about people downloading music or forgetting to return their library books. why else would they need a gun ? - to compare calibres? stop climbing up up Lazes ass. Anyway I wont use the word idiot again.

Quote:shakur420
Anyways, I was wrong, Chomsky does say something about the violent natures of revolutions and how there may be a correlation to the way those societies are afterwards. Don't know if I'd heard him say it back then, when we were having this convo, but I've heard him say it since.

Youre always wrong. You make a habit of it.

[Boboulas]

So obvious that 1871 and shak want to bone each other that it erupts into the forums.

Just make out already!!!!

[Asshole]

I understand what he meant. Doesn't change the fact the s bourgeois government would be defining what is a violent or dangerous criminal or not. Huey p newton was extremely militant.