I suppose you could use them for a door stop, or decorative art. Bottom line is that people are pissed and the left wing is going to shove this issue up the right wing's ass while the iron is hot. I could care less if assault weapons or 20 round clips are removed from the shelves - I just like to see how far radical right people will take their argument.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

I just read all of Niall Bradley's article and it is a work of brilliant brainwashing material. It reminded me of my psychology teacher's example of how to manipulate the mind with twisting details, omitting facts and inserting "gotcha" opinions. It also illustrates very well how "me first" of a society our news reporting is. News outlets want to have the first story because it will be the first found in search engines. If you doubt this, I can provide evidence. Look at our most visited date when we had over 1k visits. Take note of the date and and ask yourself what happened on that date that PH posted about FAR earlier than most news outlets.

This Niall Bradley fella is a master manipulator of the weak minded. It is actually amusing to read the brainless folks who lack mental fortitude soak it up ... but in the same sense it deeply saddens me as a Human that we're so ignorant as a group. We let people cleverly put words together and omit human nature, context and common sense. And more importantly, facts are left behind.

I expect this article to be analyzed by psychology professors all over as it is brilliantly worded and laid out to prey on the ignorant. I wish I had the time and patience and lets be honest, the give a damn to point by point defuse this articles objective.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

The rights doesn't go far at all. Simply provides the fact, that removing them from the shelves won't sovle, fix or prevent a damn thing. Not nearly as far as the pathetic left wing freaks that use the loss of these poor lives to push for a policy under the lie of it being to prevent anything.

These weapons have been around for a long long time, and they didnt' cause mass shootings like are happening now. The weapons haven't changed, the people have. For once it would be nice if a left winger actually tried to address the actual problem.

We can make schools safer by putting up doors that actually can keep bad guys out.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 

Exactly how so? It poses very legitimate questions. Sure, he's coming at it from a conspiracy theorist angle, so there's that.. But just because it has that angle doesn't devalue the questions being asked.

You exclaim you are saddened that we humans are so ignorant, yet you exclaimed yourself that you are king ignoramous. What information do you know/have that this article (or updated articles on the same sight)is omitting ?

Originally Posted by: Formo 

But you've yet to provide a purpose these weapons serve other than mass killings. I doubt you come up with anything yet. I understand the fright wings spin on the issue, but I haven't heard a reasonable, legitimate reason why society needs assualt weapons available to it. Work on it and get back to us.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

Here is three. Target shooting, collecting, and driving liberals crazy.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 

When did spraying bullets around equate to target shooting? Just think if all the money wasted by men collecting small militias in their basements was actually used for something useful like feeding the homeless or cancer research?

PFWT - you have some weak ass arguments - please come back with something more concrete. You're wasting our time.

Here, for all of you that like to masturbate with stats, this is interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0 

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

Maybe they should sit your crazy ass in a room with the twenty families that just lost their babies forever so you could explain your theory?

None of us has the right to own a machine gun. Semi automatic rifles and pistols are not necessary for hunting or self defense. We live in a violent society and the people that would benefit the most from destroying these types of weapons are the ones fighting to keep our "freedoms". Coincedentally, these are the same people who continually vote against their economic interests. I love living amongst dumbasses.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996. In 1982, Kennesaw Georgia passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in their home, exempting those with criminal records or religious objections. Yet, after the law went into effect in 1982, there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997).Seven months after it took effect, the residential burglary rate dropped 89%, vs. 10.4% statewide. Crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed impressively low.

In addition to nearly non-existent homicide, the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you? The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence. The facts tell a different story.

What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.

Note in Switzerland, every household must have, by law, a fully automatic machine gun and ammunition. The crime rate is very low there.

You do realize, that in order to spray bullets around, the trigger has to be pulled more than one time don't you? Target shooting, can be done, with one shot, or multiple shots.

All the money those men waste, go to businesses, that employ people who make salaries so they can feed their families and donate money to cancer research.

My weakest arguments, are 1000 times more valid than you strongest arguments.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 

oh & btw...my kids school made some swift changes to the way people are allowed to enter the building.

as it was, they have a buzzer system on the front door - all doors are locked as soon as school starts.
now, the only door they can go in is the front door in the morning, the superintendent helps the kids out of their cars & watches them walk into the building. i like it! i'm proud that our school did something to better ensure the safety of the kids.

when the kids go out of the class for any reason, they have to wear a lanyard with a pass on it. any visitor has to be buzzed in (they have a camera so they can see who it is) then you go to the office, sign in for whatever purpose, & have to wear a guest pass. again, i like it!

i keep wondering how much longer it'll be before our schools look like prisons.

my kids weren't freaked out about the incident but asked alot of really tough questions. pretty damn sad that a 10 year old kid has to think about this kinda bullshit, isn't it??

Originally Posted by: 4PackGirl