Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Start ducking because this I where the rocks and blame usually starts.

---

It's a honest question. What could Adam Lanza's mother have done differently? With any other child, she might have been doing everything right. And how do we know if we are raising our kids so they end up misusing a gun (or knife or brick or... )? I watched my bil raise his two daughters badly, but I kept my mouth shut because who is to say my way would have been better? Now those two daughters are over 20 and have terribly messed up lives. Should I have said something?

Sandy hook shooting: Was Adam Lanza lashing out against treatment? (+video) - CSMonitor.com

I don't know if his needs were addressed before he became 19, but the idea of being sent away triggered something I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

VIDEO: Gun show sellers shoot holes in weapons laws; firearms sold with no ID shown, NYC sting finds - NY Daily News

What's been done since?

---

I wouldn't know since the video portion that is so relied on for the article isn't showing up. Also what they were doing was illegal in the first place as NY doesn't have reciprocity agreements with the named states. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and bloomberg along with them since he sent them out to perform an illegal action.

I guess that is why NY cops have such an upstanding reputation. What crooks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

I've asked that same question here but never got an answer.

---

Please posture some more, you always ask questions without answering any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

What would you do?

---

In a normal world that would be a rhetorical question considering my response. No rock throwing necessary, the answer was already there.

Your side of the aisle has cultivated a society that has denigrated the traditional family - the only biological (scientific) reality - and turned the most innocent human life into something flushable. What the hell did you expect would happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Would you stop with the paranoia bit. We have a lot of hunters, a lot sport shooters, a lot of folks that just go plink a target on the weekends and a lot of just plain gun enthusiasts. That's only one purchase for every 6773 people, that's hardly paranoia.

---

Don't stuff around with statistics you forgot to remember we were talking about a daily rate, lots of those 6773 people have already exercised their right to buy guns, 270,000,000 of them. When we see the size of the market for more weapons, it is no wonder the NRA goes ape at the thought of restrictions

Ted Cruz challenged Joe Biden to debate the issue. If nothing else ,that would be entertaining .
Ted Cruz challenges Joe Biden to debate about gun control | WashingtonExaminer.com

http://www.investors.com/image/RAMFn...co-IBD.jpg.cms

Quote:

---

and that's why you are all in for stop and frisk... right ?

Nahhh... There's no question that a police state WOULD reduce crime, but I like the Constitution, thank you very much...

Excon

---

See Terry v Ohio
Terry v. Ohio | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
The Warren Court held that a police officer did not have to show probable cause in order to stop and frisk. Reasonable suspicion that unlawful activity might happen was all that was needed to do a “Terry stop.”
Justice John Marshall Harlan said that whenever the police had enough reason to stop a person, the right to frisking him followed “automatically” given the risk that the party stopped might be carrying a concealed weapon. The Warren Court was fully aware of the potential for charges of profiling . Yet they determined that there are no sensible alternatives to the Terry rule.

So the police are allowed to do their duty and protect themselves, seems it overrides the Constitution. I think that constitution looks like a war torn old glory, just enough left to recognisable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

don't stuff around with statistics you forgot to remember we were talking about a daily rate, lots of those 6773 people have already exercised their right to buy guns, 270,000,000 of them. when we see the size of the market for more weapons, it is no wonder the NRA goes ape at the thought of restrictions

---

Uh, the NRA doesn't sell guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Uh, the NRA doesn't sell guns.

---

But they get paid to protect the interest of the gun manufacturers that sell guns so what's the difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

But they get paid to protect the interest of the gun manufacturers that sell guns so what's the difference?

---

You have no idea what all the NRA does do you?

Its obvious they grade and fund lawmakers to do their bidding. And they actively throw money against those that don't. They oppose the will of the people in what they have said they want and that's all need to know.

The bad far outweighs the good.

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

---

see Terry v Ohio

---

Nahhhh... The police state I'm talking about is when EVERYONE is searched equally... The NY boys, are searching black guys BECAUSE they're black - not because the cop thinks they have guns..

Stop and Frisk is racism personified.

Excon

They defend our rights and that's what you hate. Someone has to, you won't.

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

---

They defend our rights and that's what you hate.

---

From what I can detect in this conversation, the NRA is protecting MY rights as a convicted felon to buy a gun.

Tell him thanks for me.

Excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Nahhhh... The police state I'm talking about is when EVERYONE is searched equally... The NY boys, are searching black guys BECAUSE they're black - not because the cop thinks they have guns..

Stop and Frisk is racism personified.

excon

---

Nope ,they are searching in high crime areas. The Warren court was aware of the potential charge of profiling . But the fact is that when they were going after the mafia ,they searched Italians The Terry decision was candid in recognizing that it chose the best of a bad lot . But it still was constitutional one... again ;the operative word in the 4th amendment . Is 'reasonable'.

cdad already addressed that. It's not as easy as you make it out to be. Meanwhile the same guy hypocritically pushing gun control still hasn't been held accountable for the death of a border patrol agent and adding to Mexico's chaos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

They defend our rights and that's what you hate. Someone has to, you won't.

---

They defend your right to buy more guns and keep gun manufacturers rich. Greed over common sense as usual, and they scare you with lies and scary stories to keep you buying.

When does the armed revolution against the government start?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

They defend your right to buy more guns and keep gun manufacturers rich. Greed over common sense as usual, and they scare you with lies and scary stories to keep you buying.

When does the armed revolution against the government start?

---

You crack me up. It's a constitutional right, get over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

nope ,they are searching in high crime areas. The Warren court was aware of the potential charge of profiling . But the fact is that when they were going after the mafia ,they searched Italians The Terry decision was candid in recognizing that it chose the best of a bad lot . But it still was constitutional one ... again ;the operative word in the 4th amendment . is 'reasonable'.

---

I guess no one has connected the dots that high crime areas are poor, urban, and mostly minority. Easier to bend the rules with a law and order excuse.

Hello again, tom/Mr. Constitutional:

Quote:

---

But it still was constitutional one... again ;the operative word in the 4th amendment . Is 'reasonable'.

---

I don't know... You seem to be saying that if SCOTS says it, you LOVE it.. But, I'll bet you don't love Heller. That's where your guy Scalia said that guns CAN be regulated...

Put THAT in your Constitutional pipe.

Excon

And they are regulated.

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

---

And they are regulated.

---

So, regulation ISN'T an assault upon the 2nd Amendment?? Wow.. But, background checks are... I got it..

Excon

James Gilkerson: Moment gunman opened fire with AK47 and was shot by police during routine traffic stop | Mail Online

??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

James Gilkerson: Moment gunman opened fire with AK47 and was shot by police during routine traffic stop | Mail Online

??????

---

Perfect demonstration video on why cops shouldn't be put into schools. The disturbed man was looking for suicide by cop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

So, regulation ISN'T an assault upon the 2nd Amendment??? Wow.. But, background checks are... I got it..

excon

---

We already have background checks. You just keep going in circles. All left turns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

We already have background checks. You just keep going in circles. All left turns.

---

Obviously not enough. To many loopholes for ex and the crew to slide through.

I cannot believe he said this:

Lying in wait right now is a terrorist, a deranged school shooter, a kidnapper, a rapist, a murderer, waiting and planning and plotting in every community across our country, lying in wait right now," LaPierre said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Uh, the NRA doesn't sell guns.

---

Really, who do you think are members of the NRA

Wayne LaPierre claimed there are 5 million NRA members yesterday at the NRA convention. Yes I suppose some of the members sell guns.

Yes I expect at least 250,000 of them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I guess no one has connected the dots that high crime areas are poor, urban, and mostly minority. Easier to bend the rules with a law and order excuse.

---

I'm talking about neighborhoods where Postal workers are too afraid to deliver the mail... so they don't . You can make your case all you want to about loss of freedom. The poor and minority residents are not free... their neighborhoods are run by gangbangers . Stop and frisk gives them a chance to liberate their neighborhoods . It is YOU that don't care about the plight of the residents. You instead want to protect the gangbangers .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

really, who do you think are members of the NRA

---

My neighbors. I would also imagine some gun store owners are members. So?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'm talking about neighborhoods where Postal workers are too afraid to deliver the mail ...so they don't . You can make your case all you want to about loss of freedom. The poor and minority residents are not free ...their neighborhoods are run by gangbangers . Stop and frisk gives them a chance to liberate their neighborhoods . It is YOU that don't care about the plight of the residence. You instead want to protect the gangbangers .

---

And I'm sure all those gangbangers, some felons, are buying their guns at gun shows.

And straw men for gang bangers, drug dealer and, fringe loons. Stopping everyone and frisking them in some neighborhoods doesn't eliminate the underlying reason for criminal activity, nor make them safer. It does help the arrest record look good though.

I suppose you live in those neighborhoods where Postal workers fear to tread.
Postal workers too scared to deliver mail in crime-ridden Brownsville, Brooklyn - NYPOST.com
In NY City 70-75 % murder suspects are blacks.. and 90 % of murder victims are minorities from the neighborhoods where stop and frisk is employed. If only 53% of those stopped are blacks... then they are being under represented as a percentage of those being stopped .
Maybe stop and risk could've saved the life of Alphonza Bryant. He was a promising student at the Urban Assembly Bronx Studio for Writers and Artists . He was gunned down last month when gangbangers took random shots of a group of 10 that Alphonza was hanging out with . The fact is that when police stop and ask a 17 year old a question based on a reasonable suspicion of a crime there is outrage. Yet when a 17 year old is standing on the street corner near his home at 8:15 in the evening and gets shot and killed, there is silence from the civil rights crowd.

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

---

Maybe stop and risk could've saved the life of Alphonza Bryant

---

It's true.. A police state would stop a LOT of crime.. But, I like the Constitution.. You? Not so much.

Excon

I've already addressed the constitutional issues . I think the constitution is covered ;including the legitimate role of the government to protect life and property. You on the other hand would allow the streets of the inner city to become the equivalent of Fallujah run by gangs instead of tribes . Let me assure you ;there are no personal liberties for the people living there when gangs and criminals dictate the rules on the streets .