[SeMissourian.com] Mostly Cloudy ~ 50°F  
Freeze Warning
Friday, Oct. 31, 2014
Post reply Read replies (162) More threads Create thread

Senator Rubio Joins Anti-science "Do Nothing Party"
Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Feb 10, 2013, at 8:31 PM:

The party of stupid increases odds of becoming a permanent minority as they add the "do nothing" role to their resume. Republican Congressmen appear to be "doubling-down" on their failed policies of 2008 to 2012. Instead of adopting a spirit of compromise that is the overwhelming belief of Americans, they seem to still believe they can get away with the "if the President is for it, we are against it," approach, even though the voters saw through this charade in November.

Some possible schemes that Senator Rubio's response to the State of the Union may include are:

In spite of the fact that the US has a serious gun problem, with over 30,000 killings per year, the republican approach will be likely to ignore it and do nothing.

There are about 11 million illegal immigrants in the US, and little action has been taken. The republican approach is to first build a "Berlin-type" wall from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico, and only then will the problem be taken up. Short of this "secure border," the republicans plan to do nothing.

The continuing climate change and global warming are clearly established fact. While the impact of man's contribution is obvious, it still being fully evaluated. (For example, smog in the Los Angeles are was created by man, and it has been resolved by man through pollution controls.) The anti-science wing of the republican party is determined to do nothing.

Both parties recognize the need to resolve the deficits. Steps have been taken to a balanced approach. It is abundantly clear that tax code reform, discretionary spending reductions and entitlement reduction and reform are all needed. If the tax code reform is developed to bring in additional revenue, the republicans propose to do nothing.

The sequester is a poor solution that must be renegotiated, but republicans propose to do nothing.



Replies

Common

Still listening to the lying party the Obama guy is with?

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Feb 10, 2013, at 9:29 PM

A partial list of children killed by the Democrats drones http://droneswatch.org/2013/01/20/list-o...

-- Posted by BCStoned on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 12:47 AM

Wheels, It seems to me that one thing in todays's America is consistant, that is how soon we forget and I think we have help in that direction with the news media that feeds us constant light switch coverage conforming to what the goverment wants government educated people to understand.

I have always had a bit of rebellion in me when it comes to authority, just glad I wasn't in the situation of some of those victims of government thugs for I would probably have been shot.

-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 1:01 AM

Amnesty for Hispanics by Fred Reed http://lewrockwell.com/reed/reed249.html

Get used to Hispanics as being a major part of the US. Hispanics are replacing whites in California as the majority. Most school age children in Texas are Hispanic.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 1:04 AM

Commonsensematters, Are you Democrats thinking about turning the drones on Hispanics?

Liberals think it is ethical for government to use its guns on killing the innocent, like at My Lai 45 years ago. They think it is unethical for a man to to have a semi-automatic to protect their family.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 1:13 AM

BC, We don't need amnesty, we don't need to legalize immigrant people. Better to legalize jobs.

A lot of folks that cross the border only want to work here for a portion of the year and then return home. Our present laws make it harder to do that and easier to stay.

Back to your let the market decide.

We need a wider door in a better fence.

-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 1:15 AM

Common,just curious,what part of Democracy is it that you dont understand? Ruling by executive order is not the way the system was set up. What happened when Democrats had the majority for two years? A new healthcare law written by bureaucrats for bureaucrats with essentially no input from the opposition. No that there is at least a little balance of power with a Republican majority in the House to pull in the reins you cry foul.

BTW- Did you see the National Prayer Breakfast where a Dr Carson put the hammer on Obama over fair taxation? That is how the opposition should speak.

-- Posted by dab1969 on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 8:24 AM

BC: Your 1:13 am comment, in my opinion, oficially put you in the extreme right wing nut job category. I'm a liberal, da** proud of it and don't agree with what you said. Your statement just reinforced why I quit reading these threads for a few months. It picked right up where I left off.

-- Posted by left turn on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 8:37 AM

"...Dr Carson put the hammer on Obama over fair taxation..."

You mean where instead of 9-9-9 he said just 10? How is that a "hammer?" Proponents of a flat tax rate are not uncommon.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 9:37 AM

"...with essentially no input from the opposition."

What you're neglecting to consider is that the republicans chose not to participate. To them, the only thing worse than an Affordable Care Act, would have been a bi-partisan ACA.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 9:40 AM

"...it is unethical for a man to to have a semi-automatic to protect their family.'

It has nothing to do with ethics. Any man should be able to defend his family with a rifle or a shotgun. This is particularly the case if military style semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines are placed into the same category as automatic firearms, RPG's etc.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 9:45 AM

The best part of Dr Carson's speech was he looked Obama right I'm the eye and told him how wrong he was. The second best part was watching Michele almost choke on her omelet. As far as Bamacare, any input from Republicans was ignored. As with everything Obama, his way or nothing.

The only thing wrong with the Democratic party is it's full of Democrats.

-- Posted by dab1969 on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 10:00 AM

"You may have forgotten the locked door sessions..."

That may be the case in your imagination, but what really happened is the republicans said they would participate if everything went back to ground zero and we started all over again. This approach was refused so the republicans went back to their "do nothing" stance.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 10:43 AM

Short memory again, can't recall the original negotiations in which democrats ignored republicans.

-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 10:50 AM

"BC: Your 1:13 am comment, in my opinion, oficially put you in the extreme right wing nut job category. I'm a liberal, da** proud of it and don't agree with what you said. Your statement just reinforced why I quit reading these threads for a few months. It picked right up where I left off."

-- Posted by left turn on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 8:37 AM

Thank you for your response. Right wing nut job? Is that worse than defending a government's gun grabbing and killing of children? Whatever happened to the left that supposedly cared about children and defended due process?

Years ago, the left called us baby killers for participating in a war that many of us disagreed with. Now who are the baby killers?

-- Posted by BCStoned on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 10:56 AM

Anxious to see if the rats jump ship when it all goes wrong. Alot of them are edging toward the lifeboats now.

Women and children first,common.

-- Posted by dab1969 on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 10:59 AM

So right dissident. Another day in Paradise. I run in a fairly liberal crowd and the discussions are lively but at the end of the day cool heads prevail and there is no hate and we remain friends. The faceless society we have now has ruined any chance of meaningful discussion without name calling and vitriol.

On this beautiful day I think I'll put a chair in the sun and take a nap.

-- Posted by dab1969 on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 12:29 PM

"...used by Republicans only , mind you !!!! -- are going to kill us all!"

-- Posted by Dissident. on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 11:59 AM

- - - - - - -

Here is another excellent example of putting typing fingers in motion before your brain is in gear.

Nothing was said about ice ages or even 4 trillion years of dirt. The fact remains that we are going through a period of global warming and there is a human component. There are rational actions that can be taken to ameliorate this situation. Furthermore, the cost of these actions will only increase by senseless complaining and delaying of predictable aftereffects.

No one said anything about people dying or skies falling, especially here in Southeastern Missouri. People living along coasts may have different ideas.

The connection to the thread is that this is only one more case of republicans, instead of looking at potential solutions, merely coming up with a resounding chorus of "do nothing."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 12:30 PM

Spaniard, I may be nutty, but I don't go around killing children in countries that I'm not at war with. We do it for the children takes on a whole new meaning.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 12:36 PM

It is in the same place "in the Constitution where it says" the arms to be borne are semi-automatic weapons.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 12:51 PM

the arms to be borne are semi-automatic weapons. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 12:51 PM

Right next to the part where it says they must be muskets. Nowhere. What is says is the right to bear arms "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Get that?

It only exists in your wild imagination. Want a reality check? Did Obama cut the deficit in half as he promised?

That will get you down to earth - or hell.

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 1:02 PM

Perhaps it's not Senator Rubio (who I have very little respect for, although for a different reason) that is anti-science, but the main stream media.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 2:13 PM

Spaniard, Welcome to free speech in America http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...

What Constitution?

-- Posted by BCStoned on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 3:11 PM

So why then is the NRA cool with preventing convicted felons from owning firearms? Why can't a prison inmate have a gun in his cell? -- Posted by Spaniard on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 3:01 PM

Because when you violate the law you can lose your rights. Duh.

Now, why do you want to take away the rights of people that abide by the law? Because Obama says so I think. That's just gotta be some good kool-aid.

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 3:19 PM

-- Posted by Spaniard on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 3:25 PM

Quit lying about yourself for a change! You support Obama's executive orders. You support Obama's call for limits on gun ownership. Most will affect the legal rights of people who abide by the law.

Obama said: "And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced."

If the only tactic you have to discuss anything is to slice it so many ways so you can't be held accountable - like Obama - then you've run out of ideas and credibility.

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 3:41 PM

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't think that Spaniard has called for gun control.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 3:58 PM

Where is that stated anywhere in the constitution that you lose an absolute right to the government? -- Posted by Spaniard on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 3:23 PM

Where to start with your misstatements? The 5th amendment to the US constitution: "No person shall be ... ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without DUE PROCESS OF LAW".

According to the founding of this very nation you can be deprived of life, liberty or property with due process of law - FELONY conviction.

I'm not going to research the host of Obama support you have given on the gun-control issue. Every time I do that I prove you wrong - I don't even need to spend the time. You support Obama's gun initiatives lock, stock and barrel - pun intended.

Quit whining about lying. You do it all the time about others and I also proved that a couple of months ago.

Physician heal thyself.

Now, outside of the playground foot stomping and crying, can you add anything substantive to the conversation?

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 4:27 PM

Subject: Murder Stats

Betcha don't hear this out of D.C. these days.

From the World Health Organization:

The latest Murder Statistics for the world:

Murders per 100,000 citizens

Honduras 91.6

El Salvador 69.2

Cote d'lvoire 56.9 52.2

Venezuela 45.1

Belize 41.4

US Virgin Islands 39.2

Guatemala 38.5

Saint Kits and Nevis 38.2

Zambia 38.0

Uganda 36.3

Malawi 36.0

Lesotho 35.2

Trinidad and Tobago 35.2

Colombia 33.4

South Africa 31.8

Congo 30.8

Central African Republic 29.3

Bahamas 27.4

Puerto Rico 26.2

Saint Lucia 25.2

Dominican Republic 25.0

Tanzania 24.5

Sudan 24.2

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9

Ethiopia 22.5

Guinea 22.5

Dominica 22.1

Burundi 21.7

Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7

Panama 21.6

Brazil 21.0

Equatorial Guinea 20.7

Guinea-Bissau 20.2

Kenya 20.1

Kyrgyzstan 20.1

Cameroon 19.7

Montserrat 19.7

Greenland 19.2

Angola 19.0

Guyana 18.6

Burkina Faso 18.0

Eritrea 17.8

Namibia 17.2

Rwanda 17.1

Mexico 16.9

Chad 15.8

Ghana 15.7

Ecuador 15.2

North Korea 15.2

Benin 15.1

Sierra Leone 14.9

Mauritania 14.7

Botswana 14.5

Zimbabwe 14.3

Gabon 13.8

Nicaragua 13.6

French Guiana 13.3

Papua New Guinea 13.0

Swaziland 12.9

Bermuda 12.3

Comoros 12.2

Nigeria 12.2

Cape Verde 11.6

Grenada 11.5

Paraguay 11.5

Barbados 11.3

Togo 10.9

Gambia 10.8

Peru 10.8

Myanmar 10.2

Russia 10.2

Liberia 10.1

Costa Rica 10.0

Nauru 9.8

Bolivia 8.9

Mozambique 8.8

Kazakhstan 8.8

Senegal 8.7

Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7

Mongolia 8.7

British Virgin Islands 8.6

Cayman Islands 8.4

Seychelles 8.3

Madagascar 8.1

Indonesia 8.1

Mali 8.0

Pakistan 7.8

Moldova 7.5

Kiribati 7.3

Guadeloupe 7.0

Haiti 6.9

Timor-Leste 6.9

Anguilla 6.8

Antigua and Barbuda 6.8

Lithuania 6.6

Uruguay 5.9

Philippines 5.4

Ukraine 5.2

Estonia 5.2

Cuba 5.0

Belarus 4.9

Thailand 4.8

Suriname 4.6

Laos 4.6

Georgia 4.3

Martinique 4.2

And

The United States = 4.2

ALL the countries above America have 100% gun bans

-- Posted by dab1969 on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 4:46 PM

I believe it was "spin"iard who commented Dr Carson could not save the Republican Party. Neither he or I referenced the Republican Party. In fact Dr Carson is a self described Independent who " would only join a political party if it was called the Logic Party". I doubt if Spaniard listened to or read a transcript if the speech.

-- Posted by dab1969 on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 5:01 PM

What you're neglecting to consider is that the republicans chose not to participate. To them, the only thing worse than an Affordable Care Act, would have been a bi-partisan ACA.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 9:40 AM

And now we know it is going to cost us $20K for the cheap policy. BTW this was done without Republicans.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 6:15 PM

Regret, I guess Spaniard,common and left turn are just plum wore down defending the realm. Besides they have to get the prayer rugs out for bama's speech tomorrow night.

Personally, I think I'll watch a Manchurian Candidate DVD and work on an ingrown hair. More enjoyable.

-- Posted by dab1969 on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 8:38 PM

-- Posted by dab1969 on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 8:38 PM

Laughed out loud at that one. Thanks!

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 8:46 PM

Watch Obama and you might be watching a real Manchurian Candidate. This guy has a knack of doing things to create an inescapable problem but has the blind support of millions.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 8:52 PM

"...$20K for the cheap policy."

You still have a serious problem in understanding what aveage means.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 9:18 PM

"...right to bear arms "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

George Washington didn't let his men take cannons home. Oops, a right INFRINGED.

F. S. Key never got to keep a rocket. Oops, a right INFRINGED.

Gen. Grant made his men turn in their Gatling gun. Oops, a right INFRINGED.

"Black Jack" Pershing confiscated all of his men's mortars. Oops, a right INFRINGED.

Elliot Ness had his guys give up their "Tommy" guns. Oops, a right INFRINGED.

Gen. Patton prevented the 3rd Army from taking BAR's home. Oops, a right INFRINGED.

No one serving in Vietnam was allowed to bring back their AK-47. Oops, a right INFRINGED.

Iraqi vets had to give up their RPG's. Oops, a right INFRINGED.

Sorry, but today's semi-automatics are every bit as dangerous.

The right to bear arms is not absolute, nor does it have to be.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 9:57 PM

Common,I just have to ask,doesn't all this just wear you out? Nothing better to do? Did a knee jerk damage your brain? Is being a liberal kind of like being drunk all the time? You are one fervent dude(tte). That last post was a hoot. Will 'bama get to keep a drone? Hope all that yelling (CAPS) makes you sleep well ,tomorrow's a big night for you.

-- Posted by dab1969 on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 10:42 PM

You still have a serious problem in understanding what aveage means.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 9:18 P

I'm sure that means I pay more that the leeches that suck the government teet. BTW $20K wont touch it in 5 years.

.................................................................

"Sorry, but today's semi-automatics are every bit as dangerous."

As a BAR? They are still not as dangerous as liberal agenda.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 10:52 PM

"Sorry, but today's semi-automatics are every bit as dangerous."

Even if they were these evil mind of their own dangerous weapons as liberals are making them out to be, when they are bought, paid for and owned by the private citizen, governmnet has no right to infringe upon that ownership.

The examples given were government owned weapons.

Goverment may infringe on the use of them but not the ownership or bearing of?

-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 12:13 AM

"...all this just wear you out? Nothing better to do?"

It's is just too easy to refute all of the weird and repetitive claims made by the guys. Doesn't take much time at all. I do farm work everyday, take SEMO classes 3 days a week, and enjoy myself.

"...that yelling (CAPS)... is a good example, I was just responding in the same tense as the post being replied to.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 7:36 AM

"Goverment may infringe on the use of them but not the ownership or bearing of?"

Except that the government, as backed up by the Supreme Court, can put new semi-automatic weapons into the same category as automatics and preclude their future manufacture and sale.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 8:06 AM

Old John is correct,common,all the examples to used were Government owned and not to be given away. Private ownership is completely different.

Farm job. Government subsidized pay?

College. Government grant or loan?

-- Posted by dab1969 on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 8:14 AM

"Both parties recognize the need to resolve the deficits."

If both parties recognized it, there would be no deficits.

The deficit exploded under Democrat control, and the Democrat-controlled Senate has not seen fit to even pass a budget, let alone propose any real solutions to fixing it. The House, under Republican leadership, has proposed solutions to dealing with it, but the Democrats (and, to be fair, some Republicans) have not been on board. The Democrats only care about deficits when they can blame Republicans for them.

"In spite of the fact that the US has a serious gun problem..."

The Democrats call it a 'gun problem', and offer the same tired solutions they've offered since the 1960s. It's really a mental health problem, but the Democrats don't want to address that.

"There are about 11 million illegal immigrants in the US, and little action has been taken."

Until you mend the screen, it doesn't matter what your policy on flies may be. After some effective means is put in place to control the influx of illegal immigrants into the country, it makes little sense to consider amnesty to those already in, as it there will simply be that many more 'already here' if a few years, and the issue will have to be addressed all over again.

The Democrats ignore this problem with their policy.

"The continuing climate change and global warming are clearly established fact. While the impact of man's contribution is obvious, it still being fully evaluated."

The Republican Party, which established the EPA and has, in fact, done much to help the environment, has not bought into the Democrats' idea that taxation is the solution to pollution. In fact, taxation seems to be the Democrats' solution to every problem.

Despite the fact that Republicans have 'done nothing', the environment has been getting cleaner. CO2 emissions have been dropping, not due to Democrats tax-the-polluters proposals, but rather due to improvements in technology, particularly fracking, which have shifted America's usage towards cleaner-burning natural gas, which is more abundant and affordable due to technology, not due to higher taxes.

The shift towards 'renewable energy', despite the Democrats' push in that direction, has been slight, however. Nor has the government been able to force the wind to blow when they want, or the Sun to shine more than about half the day, which is necessary if 'renewable energy' is to serve our 24/7 demand.

And, yet, they call Republicans 'anti-Science'.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpete...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 8:21 AM

Sorry, but today's semi-automatics are every bit as dangerous. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 9:57 PM

Just that statement alone infers your lack of comprehension on what a semi-automatic rifle is - vs. an RPG, vs. a mortar, vs. a gatling gun, vs. an AK-47. You're attempting to argue political talking points you've read without any understanding of the material.

Spaniard - you're looking pretty bad here. When you get beat in a debate you start crying. Please post that again - wait! I'll post it:

Dug is still lying. Dug is not an honest debater.

I've proven you wrong with your own posts so many times it's old. Pick on someone your own size - maybe some 3rd grader or something?

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 8:30 AM

Once again I'll repost:

Quit lying about yourself for a change! You support Obama's executive orders. You support Obama's call for limits on gun ownership. Most will affect the legal rights of people who abide by the law.

Obama said: "And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced."

If the only tactic you have to discuss anything is to slice it so many ways so you can't be held accountable - like Obama - then you've run out of ideas and credibility.

My answer stands. You support him, you support his executive orders, you failed to respond to the 5th amendment regarding rights and their removal through due process - not executive orders. You can continue to lie and run when facts are given or give your lame "source please" while nearly never providing your own source. I"m not going to be goaded into your game of chase the tail. You're lying - continually. And I'll not respond to your 3rd grade tactics. Hence the repost - you support Obama and when cornered run. Cowardice comes to mind. Stand up for your own beliefs even when challenged - it's invigorating.

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 9:24 AM

"This is particularly the case if military style semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines are placed into the same category as automatic firearms, RPG's etc."

But they are not in the same category. Placing them there would be to ignore the physical reality of their design, something the 'pro-Science' Democrats claim to oppose...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 9:30 AM

-- Posted by Spaniard on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 9:28 AM

If the only tactic you have to discuss anything is to slice it so many ways so you can't be held accountable - like Obama - then you've run out of ideas and credibility.

Challenge met.

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 9:48 AM

"The sequester is a poor solution that must be renegotiated, but republicans propose to do nothing."

The sequester is the solution derived at because the Democrats refused to compromise on spending cuts. Even in this, an agreed-upon set of spending cuts which were mandated if a better deal could not be reached, the Democrats are trying to delay any spending cuts. This, despite the fact Commonsensematters they are in agreement that the deficit needs to be cut.

A poor solution would appear to be better than no solution, in this case. The Republicans have offered a solution, the Democrats have not, at least not a realistic one. They always want to delay any spending cuts until the next Congress. That means, of course, that the spending cuts will likely never happen.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 10:36 AM

Unless spending cuts are made as part of an immediate deal, worked into current spending bills, they will not happen in a legislature, or rather I should say a Senate, that refuses to pass a budget.

Without a budget, there can be no budget cuts.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 10:38 AM

"George Washington didn't let his men take cannons home. Oops, a right INFRINGED.

"F. S. Key never got to keep a rocket. Oops, a right INFRINGED.

"Gen. Grant made his men turn in their Gatling gun. Oops, a right INFRINGED.

"Black Jack" Pershing confiscated all of his men's mortars. Oops, a right INFRINGED.

"Elliot Ness had his guys give up their "Tommy" guns. Oops, a right INFRINGED.

"Gen. Patton prevented the 3rd Army from taking BAR's home. Oops, a right INFRINGED.

"No one serving in Vietnam was allowed to bring back their AK-47. Oops, a right INFRINGED.

"Iraqi vets had to give up their RPG's. Oops, a right INFRINGED."

As usual, Commonsensematters doesn't see the difference between people having a right to bear arms and having a right to have the government supply them. Each of the examples he cites involves the government recollecting the firearms it issues the men while they were employed in service thereunto.

This, methinks, is the major problem with Democrat-think. If you have a right to bear arms, that must mean you have a right to have the government supply them. If you have a right to access health care, then you must have right to have the government pay for it. If you have a right to have an abortion, then you must have the right to have government funding for those services. If you have a right to the pursuit of happiness, then it must be incumbent upon the government to pay for that pursuit. If you have the right to free speech, the government must buy you an amplifier.

The sad part is that there are so many that cannot see the difference...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 12:00 PM

"Calling it a "budget" isn't necessary to spend less. Pass appropriation bills that spend less than previously authorized."

The passing of a budget gives cost-cutting Senators leverage in opposing unbudgeted spending allotments. If it ain't in the budget, it can't be spent without a special appropriation. Without a budget, there is no budget points of order, and thus runaway spending cannot be so easily curtailed.

The legislature passed a law that calls for a budget to be passed. Mr. Reid blocks budget bills from reaching the floor for a vote. He does not want a budget, because he does not want a budget analysis, and he does not want any budget points of order to block spending.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=155

"Enforcing the Terms of the Budget Resolution

"The main enforcement mechanism that prevents Congress from passing legislation that violates the terms of the budget resolution is the ability of a single member of the House or the Senate to raise a budget "point of order" on the floor to block such legislation. In some recent years, this point of order has not been particularly important in the House because it can be waived there by a simple majority vote on a resolution developed by the leadership-appointed Rules Committee, which sets the conditions under which each bill will be considered on the floor.

"However, the budget point of order is important in the Senate, where any legislation that exceeds a committee's spending allocation -- or cuts taxes below the level allowed in the budget resolution -- is vulnerable to a budget point of order on the floor that requires 60 votes to waive.

"Appropriations bills (or amendments to them) must fit within the 302(a) allocation given to the Appropriations Committee as well as the Committee-determined 302(b) sub-allocation for the coming fiscal year. Tax or entitlement bills (or any amendments offered to them) must fit within the budget resolution's spending limit for the relevant committee or within the revenue floor, both in the first year and over the total multi-year period covered by the budget resolution. The cost of a tax or entitlement bill is determined (or "scored") by the Budget Committees, nearly always by relying on the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which measures the bill against a budgetary "baseline" that projects entitlement spending or tax receipts under current law.

_______

Yes, there is a reason for having budgets, and there is a reason for Mr. Reid's opposition to them.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 12:11 PM

"This, methinks, is the major problem with Democrat-think. If you have a right to bear arms, that must mean you have a right to have the government supply them."

Nothing of the sort. Why would anyone think that the government should supply weapons? That and the "logic" extensions on health care, abortion, speech etc. are equally silly.

My point was very simply that the governewmt has rightfully determined that there are a variety of weapons that are unsuitable for private use. Future sales and import of semi-automatic weapons should be incorporated into that group.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 3:59 PM

"...political talking points you've read without any understanding of the material."

Where are these supposed "talking points?" The lack of understanding on your part is obvious. There are clearly types of weapons that are unsuitable for private use, and again, I recommend that semi-automatic weapons be placed into this same category.

If it does not happen now, it will after the next massacre of children or other civilians. If it does not happen then, it will be after the one after that.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 4:09 PM

"My point was very simply that the governewmt has rightfully determined that there are a variety of weapons that are unsuitable for private use. Future sales and import of semi-automatic weapons should be incorporated into that group."

Every one of the instances you cited was an instance in which the government merely retained ownership of the weapons it had issues. Given that you did not appear to recognize that fact, there is noting silly about my noting it, or about comparing it to other issues in which you seem to make no distinciton between having a right to something and having a right to have someone provide you with that thing.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 4:12 PM

Future sales and import of semi-automatic weapons should be incorporated into that group. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 3:59 PM

If it does not happen now, it will after the next massacre of children or other civilians. If it does not happen then, it will be after the one after that. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 4:09 PM

And when does the ban on fertilizer and diesel fuel start? The largest domestic terrorist action occurred in Oklahoma with a bomb largely made of common fertilizer and diesel. Why are you not advocating a ban on that - "into that group"?

In the Columbine massacre they had several propane takes used to set off as bombs. Why are you not advocating bans on propane tanks - weapons of mass destruction?

I'll tell you why since you'll never address that - because fertilizer doesn't murder people, propane doesn't murder people, guns don't murder people - only people murder people.

The only reason you support gun restrictions and bans is because Obama said so. You've got to try and think for yourself once in a while.

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 4:45 PM

"If it does not happen now, it will after the next massacre of children or other civilians. If it does not happen then, it will be after the one after that."

That makes it sound like some people are rooting for the next massacre, so they can fulfil their agenda...

Maybe that's why there's less of a push for an investigation into any possible link between the anti-depressant drugs that appear to be more of a commonality among the shooters than the preference of weapon types. After all, what's the loss of a few innocent children if it serves the 'common good'...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 4:49 PM

"That makes it sound like some people are rooting for the next massacre..."

Very definitely not. However, if you believe that Sandy Hook was the last one, you're in for a shock. With the proliferation of gins in America, over 30,000 killings per year, the next one is unfortunately just a matter of time.

- - -- --- ---- -----

"...between having a right to something and having a right to have someone provide you with that thing."

I believe nothing of the sort. That seems to be an assumption on your part.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 5:35 PM

"With the proliferation of gins in America, over 30,000 killings per year..."

You keep tossing that number out. Keep in mind, the majority of those are self-killings (suicides). Just people wanting to quietly end it all. I thought you Democrats were in favour of that right.

"I believe nothing of the sort. That seems to be an assumption on your part."

It is consistent with your post suggesting that the government's retaining of the government-purchased firearms is somehow consistent with the idea that the government is empowered to infringe upon 'rights' by doing so.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 5:44 PM

"You keep tossing that number out.'

They are killings nervertheless. Are you happier with only 12,000 killings.

- -- --- ---- -----

"...the government's retaining of the government-purchased firearms..."

I am certain that you understand that my point had nothing to do with government issued weapons. It has everything to do with there being numerous types of weapons that are prohibited from private use. The military weapons are merely examples. I would not think that you truly believe that the 2nd Amendment allows all Americans the right to possess every type of firearm, like automatic weapons or "civilian" versions of M-60's and M-79's.

My argument is that eventually semi-automatic weapons will join automatics as illicit. Existing weapons, will not be confiscated, repeat, will not be confiscated, rather the manufacture and import of new semi-automatic weapons will be prohibited. As existing weapons are captured from criminals, they will be destroyed. All legal and law-abiding owners of semi-automatic weapons will be allowed to keep them as long as they want.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 6:47 PM

My argument is that eventually semi-automatic weapons will join automatics as illicit. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 6:47 PM

So we'll be hunting quail with single shot muskets and shot guns? This, again, just shows how unfamiliar you are with guns. You act like "semi-automatic" is a bad word. Why? Because someone on MSNBC said so?

Why does Chicago lead the nation in murders with the strictest gun control around? Are .45 caliber revolvers semi-automatic?

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 6:54 PM

Dug

In the liberals eyes everything that hold more than one shot is semi auto.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 8:49 PM

"...with single shot muskets and shot guns?"

Since you seem to know so little, here are some explanations from Wikipedia....

"Semi-automatic refers to a firearm which uses the force of recoil or gas to eject the empty case and load a fresh cartridge into the firing chamber for the next shot and which allows repeat shots solely through the action of pulling the trigger. A double-action revolver also requires only a trigger pull for each round that is fired but is not considered semi-automatic since the manual action of pulling the trigger is what advances the cylinder, not the energy of the preceding shot."

"A semi-automatic, or self-loading, firearm is a weapon that performs all steps necessary to prepare the weapon to fire again after firing--assuming cartridges remain in the weapon's feed device or magazine. Typically, this includes extracting and ejecting the spent cartridge case from the weapon's firing chamber, re-cocking the firing mechanism, and loading a new cartridge into the firing chamber. Although automatic weapons and selective fire firearms do the same tasks, semi-automatic firearms do not automatically fire an additional round until the trigger is released and re-pressed by the person firing the weapon."

"While all basic firearm actions require the action to be cycled manually before the first shot, semi-automatic as well as automatic and selective fire actions are differentiated from other forms such as single-action or double-action revolvers, pump-action, bolt-action, or lever-action firearms by eliminating the need to manually cycle the weapon after each shot. For example, to fire ten rounds from a semi-automatic firearm or a selective fire weapon set to fire semi-automatically, the action would initially be cycled to load the first round and the trigger would need to be pulled ten times (once for each round fired). For the other forms, the weapon's mechanism would require cycling manually prior to firing the next round. An automatic or a selective fire weapon set to fire automatically would be able to fire continuously as long as the trigger is held until the magazine or feed device runs out of ammunition."

There are many versions of multi round weapons that are not gas operated that can be used.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 8:50 PM

"that hold more than one shot is semi auto."

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 8:49

Looks like others don't understand semi-automatic either. Read the above entry.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 8:54 PM

That rapid-fire semi-automatic firearms with large capacity magazines will eventually be prohibited and it will not deter sports and self-defense use in any way.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 9:02 PM

Wheels, He's just trying to prove that common sense matters not when justifying gradual disarmament of citizens.

-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 9:16 PM

"...gradual disarmament of citizens."

No mention of that, nor has anyone, except for the NRA, ever claimed that to be the case. Why should we expect "disarmament?"

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 9:25 PM

Looks like others don't understand semi-automatic either. Read the above entry.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 8:54 P

Read MY above entry. You missed the part that I said "in the liberal mind". I'm sure that was a mistake.

I already know what a Semi Auto is. I grew up with them. I figured since you work on a farm after your classes and being retired from the military you wouldn't need such a long definition to go by.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 9:36 PM

"I am certain that you understand that my point had nothing to do with government issued weapons. It has everything to do with there being numerous types of weapons that are prohibited from private use."

That may have been your point, but it was not supported by your post. Your post merely pointed out that government soldiers had to return the government's weaponry when they were done with it. You surely can understand that.

I ran a nuclear reactor when I was in the Navy. The Navy did not let me bring the reactor home with me when I was done, but I doubt anyone, other than you, could see that as an infringement on my right to own or to not own a nuclear reactor.

The Navy didn't even let me bring home the tools I was issued to utilize for work. But there is nothing in that restriction that prevents me from owning similar tools if I buy them myself, or if my employer buys them for me.

Face it. You chose a lousy set of examples.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 9:45 PM

"Are you happier with only 12,000 killings."

Yes. Aren't you? Or does that number not support your agenda?

That number includes justifiable homicides, including killings by police officers, by the way.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 9:46 PM

"There are many versions of multi round weapons that are not gas operated that can be used."

What do you have against gas? You do understand that the gas is nothing more than compressed air and exhaust gases from the firing of the previous shot. Since those gases are present even in recoil-operated semi-automatics, the wording of any legislation the relies on the presence of gas in the banning process would likely have unintended consequences. But, of course, for those with an agenda simply to ban as many guns as possible, those consequences may not be unintended. The may merely wish them to appear that way...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 9:56 PM

"...with an agenda simply to ban as many guns as possible..."

No one in the administration has suggested that. It is really just the NRA that keeps that claim on the front burner as a fund raising ploy by trying to scare their members. It is difficult to comprehend how or why anyone would actually believe that the 2nd Amendment would be rescinded.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 10:16 PM

"...exhaust gases from the firing of the previous shot."

...and that's what allows the rapid fire that permits the killing of many people in as short a period as possible.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 10:18 PM

" It is really just the NRA that keeps that claim on the front burner as a fund raising ploy by trying to scare their members."

It cost money to fight Washington. Otherwise guns would have been gone years ago.

.................................................................

"...and that's what allows the rapid fire that permits the killing of many people in as short a period as possible."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 10:18 PM

12 volts does it also. Lets not leave out home made explosives that will never be controlled. If someone has the will they will find a way.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 10:47 PM

There are many versions of multi round weapons that are not gas operated that can be used. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 8:50 PM

Apparently you're entirely unfamiliar with piston operated non-gas AR-15 rifles. Again, you're out of your league common.

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 10:54 PM

"...unfamiliar with piston operated non-gas AR-15 rifles."

"AR-15" is a registered trade mark of Colt's Manufacturing Co, Inc. Per the manufacturer the weapon operates on a direct gas impingement (DGI) system, or an improved gas piston operating system. Perhaps you could explain how a "non-gas AR-15 rifle" works.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Feb 13, 2013, at 6:38 AM

"No one in the administration has suggested that."

I said nothing about the administration. I'm talking about your posts.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Feb 13, 2013, at 7:04 AM

"No one in the administration has suggested that." I said nothing about the administration. I'm talking about your posts. -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Feb 13, 2013, at 7:04 AM

Maybe we've got Barack Obama posting here and he slipped up? :-)

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Feb 13, 2013, at 7:29 AM

Perhaps you could explain how a "non-gas AR-15 rifle" works -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Feb 13, 2013, at 6:38 AM

I won't explain. Read and learn: http://www.armyparatrooper.org/dropzone/...

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Feb 13, 2013, at 7:31 AM

"non-gas AR-15 rifle" works --

I won't explain. Read and learn:"

All that link said was that the expanding gas was used to move a piston, instead of being empolyed thru a tube. It is still gas operated.

Where is this "non-gas AR-15" rifle?

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Feb 13, 2013, at 9:21 AM

Where is this "non-gas AR-15" rifle? -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Feb 13, 2013, at 9:21 AM

Maybe this will help you - "direct impingement":

http://www.ar15armory.com/forums/index.p...

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Feb 13, 2013, at 10:13 AM

"help you - "direct impingement":"

As in DGI, direct gas impingement... Again that system uses gas.

I'm beginning to believe that there is no such thing as a "non-gas AR-15" rifle."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Feb 13, 2013, at 10:22 AM

There are many versions of multi round weapons that are not gas operated that can be used. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 8:50 PM

Now you are really confused. Let me clear this up for you.

YOU made the statement that a ban on "gas operated" rifles should be implemented. Here's a bit of news for you - ALL guns use gas. The explosion produces gas that pushes the bullet or projectile down the barrel. A single shot .22 caliber rifle uses "gas". Many semi-automatic weapons use "gas" to place another cartridge in the chamber. Some do not.

There are AR-15 rifles that use "gas" - just like single-shot .22 caliber rifle to send the projectile out. And there are AR-15 rifles that use the "gas" in another way to load the next cartridge in the chamber. There are "gas" loading AR-15 and "direct impingement" reloading AR-15's. They both use "gas" for the projectile - only one of them uses it to reload the chamber.

So if you don't like "gas" rifles then I assume you want to ban the semi-automatic .22 rifle? Like the AR-15 non-gas direct-impingement reload?

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Feb 13, 2013, at 1:10 PM

Now you are telling me that there is no such thing as a "non-gas AR-15" rifle.

Bout time you admitted your were wrong.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Feb 13, 2013, at 4:22 PM

Sounds like a whole lot of hot air to me.

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Feb 13, 2013, at 8:34 PM

I want to now how "Obamacare's more efficient marketing through exchanges would save the typical family $2,500 per year" is working? Looks to me like he is not very good with numbers.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Feb 13, 2013, at 9:44 PM

I's simple. Raise the cost $7,000 and give'm a discount of $2,500.

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Feb 13, 2013, at 10:53 PM

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Feb 13, 2013, at 4:22 PM

And now you know that ALL guns use gas. You still want to stand on banning guns that use "gas"?

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Feb 14, 2013, at 2:31 PM

"...that ALL guns use gas."

Then I'm still waiting for the explanation of what a "...non-gas AR-15 rifles" is.

Per your -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 10:54 PM.

I'm not really expecting you to explain that. My point was that firearms that use gas as the means of rapidly ejecting an expended shell and loading a new round are the type that should not be used. Those are the ones used in most mass killings, and have little to no use other than that.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 14, 2013, at 3:40 PM

My point was that firearms that use gas as the means of rapidly ejecting an expended shell and loading a new round are the type that should not be used. Those are the ones used in most mass killings, and have little to no use other than that. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 14, 2013, at 3:40 PM

So you are OK keeping "direct impingement" AR-15 semi-automatic rifles? As opposed to the gas ejection AR-15 semi-automatic?

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Feb 14, 2013, at 3:48 PM

"Those are the ones used in most mass killings, and have little to no use other than that."

There are relatively few mass killings, and several thousands of those types of firearms. Ergo, your claim that they have little to no use other than would seem erroneous:

http://hunting.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/X...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 14, 2013, at 3:51 PM

"Beretta's gas operated semi-automatic shotguns are all based on the same action, the 391. Built in a variety of variations, including one that handles the blonky 12 gauge 3.5" magnum shells, this action is obviously quite versatile. Add to that the good looks and reliability that Beretta shotguns are known for, and it sounds like a winning combination. Crossbolt safety is in front of the trigger in the trigger guard, a better location (easier to use) than behind the trigger."

"Browning has long had an excellent reputation for fine guns, and their gas-operated semi-auto Gold shotgun should be no exception. Self-regulating so it can handle both light and heavy loads without adjustment, this model is also good-looking, which doesn't hurt its reputations a bit. Also available in a 3.5" version that will shoot lighter loads as well. Has a magazine cutoff, which can be handy. Safety is a crossbolt behind the trigger."

"Current Franchi autoloaders include the I-12, 720, and 48AL. The I-12 is inertia-operated, the 720 has a non-adjustable gas system, and the 48Al is a long-recoil-action reminiscent of early Browning autos."

"Mossberg's 935 is chambered for the whopping 3-1/2" 12 gauge magnum, and uses a self-regulating gas system. This gun was developed for use with 3" and 3.5" shells, so don't expect it to function with dove loads. The 930 should be able to handle that chore. These guns are only available in synthetic-stocked versions. The safety is just exactly where it belongs - centered on the rear of the receiver for ambidextrous thumb operation, where all shotgun safeties should live."

"Remington's 1100 has been around for ages, and it's going strong. I'm not sure why, since their 11-87 is an improvement on it. The 1100's main disadvantage is that you must only use the shells it's designed for (2-3/4" or 3"). A 3"-chambered 11-87, on the other hand, can handle lighter loads along with 3" magnums. Both are gas-operated and come in a variety of sub-models."

"Winchester's Super X3 autoloading shotgun is gas-operated. Their 3-1/2" magnum version will handle everything from hotter 2-3/4" shells on up. Crossbolt safety located behind the trigger."

All of these hunting firearms use gas systems for semi-automatic loading. The the best of my knowledge, none has been used in 'mass killings'. Are a renowned as fine hunting firearms.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 14, 2013, at 3:54 PM

http://www.gameandfishmag.com/2010/10/07...

"But one big downside to a bolt-action rifle when compared to a semi-automatic rifle is felt recoil. Larger calibers, from some favorite deer calibers such as the .30-06 on up, generate heavy recoil the average shooter may not tolerate well. Gas-operated semi-autos attenuate this recoil."

"Another plus favoring semi-autos is faster reloading for follow-up shots. Combine less recoil for eliminating muzzle jump with faster loading and getting the sights or crosshairs on target for a second or third shot and the semi-auto wins out over the bolt action.

"Two styles of semi-automatic rifles are typically used for hunting. The first is the traditional-style hunting rifle and the other is the military conformation or AR-style rifle. Some hunters erroneously believe AR is mil-speak for Automatic Rifle, but AR is really the model designation for rifles made by ArmaLite, Inc., a company that became, and still is, a major manufacturer of military-style rifles and survival rifles featuring synthetic stocks. An AR-style rifle in today's parlance is technically referred to as a "modern sporting weapon."

"Freedom Group, Inc. is an umbrella company that has acquired many different firearms manufacturers, including Remington and DPMS Panther Arms. Remington's current, traditional style semi-automatic hunting rifle model is the 750 Woodsmaster, which is offered with a wood or synthetic stock with metalwork in a blued or matte finish. Calibers include .243 Win. .270 Win. 308 Win., .30-06 Springfield and .35 Whelen.

"Remington's R-15 is a modular style, modern sporting rifle with a camouflaged finish. Calibers for the R-15 are based on the 5.56 NATO (.223 Rem.) case, with the 30 Remington AR a viable deer caliber at moderate ranges and the 450 Bushmaster a heavy-hitting, short-range option. Remington's R-25 is the same modern sporting rifle design, but it is chambered for some of the most popular, all-purpose deer calibers that are based on the 7.62 NATO (.308 Win.) case, including the .243 Win., 7mm-08 Rem. and .308 Win."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 14, 2013, at 4:01 PM

Those are the ones used in most mass killings, and have little to no use other than that.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 14, 2013, at 3:40 PM

I guarantee I can pull off rounds with my pump shotgun as fast as you can shoot a auto.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVoehY1ss...

The lets check out a 6 shot revolver.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSF...

So you are worried about big clips?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbC5mEc6i...

"Psychopaths will use whatever they can to inflict pain on people. Consider the following:

March 25, 2008, Sitka, Alaska: An 18 year killed 4 people with a 5-inch knife.

June 8, 2001, Osaka, Japan: A school janitor killed 8 children with a kitchen knife.

July 1, 2008, Shanghai, China: A man stabbed 6 police officers to death and wounded 4 others with a knife.

"According to the FBI's website, during the time period between 2007 until 2011, there were 8,967 people that were murdered with knives or cutting instruments; during that same time period, there were 3,918 people that were murdered with either rifles or shotguns," Hunter told TheBlaze.

And, of course, murderers aren't restricted to just sharp objects and guns. Some have used explosives:

April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City, Okla.: Timothy McVay murdered 168 people and injured 680 when he blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building using, among other components, fertilizer.

May 18, 1927, Bath, Mich.: A man murdered 44 people, 38 of which were elementary school children. Another 58 were wounded when he blew up the Bath Consolidated School. To date, this is still the worst school massacre in US history.

November 1, 1955: John "Jack" Gilbert Graham murdered 44 people by planting a dynamite bomb in his mother's suitcase that was subsequently loaded aboard United Airlines Flight 629. The bomb detonated shortly after takeoff.

Others transportation:

September 11, 2001: Nineteen terrorists murdered nearly 3,000 people on American soil by intentionally flying passenger planes into the North and South towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York City and the Pentagon in Arlington, Va. A fourth plane was also hijacked and was intended to be crashed into the U.S. Capitol, but passengers overcame the hijackers and the plane crashed in Shanksville, Pa.

June 8, 2008, Tokyo, Japan: A man drove his truck into a crowd of people, killing three. He then exited the vehicle and stabbed 12 people. In all, seven people were killed as a result.

April 30, 2009, Apeldoorn, Netherlands: A man intentionally drove his car into a group of people amassed for a parade. He killed six and seriously injured another 12 before dying from the crash himself.

Others blunt objects:

August 6, 2004, Deltona, Fla.: Four men decided to bludgeon 6 people using baseball bats because they wanted to steal an Xbox belonging to one of the victims. All of the attackers were old enough to buy firearms.

July 20, 2009, Sydney, Australia: A family of 5 was bludgeoned to death as they slept. Most likely baseball bats were used in the attack.

"According to the FBI's website, during the time period between 2007 until 2011, there were 2,918 people that were murdered with blunt objects (baseball bats, hammers, etc.)," Hunter reminds us. "During that same time period, there were 1,874 people that were murdered with rifles.""

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Feb 14, 2013, at 9:09 PM

This guy makes sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZo4hbGJj...

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Feb 14, 2013, at 9:19 PM

common come out of that far left universe you live in and open your eyes look around. Take the blinders off.

-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Fri, Feb 15, 2013, at 6:38 AM

HEAR YE, HEAR YE! IN the court of public opinion convened by the oft-elegant but oft-wrong Spaniard a challenge has been laid.

I (Dug) said the following:

"Now, why do you want to take away the rights of people that abide by the law? Because Obama says so I think. That's just gotta be some good kool-aid." -- Posted by Dug on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 3:19 PM

And the you (Spaniard) responded:

"I have never said I want to take away the rights of people who abide the law. Quit lying about me Dug." -- Posted by Spaniard on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 3:25 PM

and has continued to whine and cry "You lie Dug" based on this posting alone. And continues cry about this (see above). Let's look at the oft-elegant but oft-wrong Spaniards post - just one of too many to list here. Using Spaniards own "You LIE!" standard here is one of his posts. Spaniard said Obama should be impeached and I (Dug) followed up with this:

"Spaniard says Obama should be impeached!" -- Posted by Dug on Mon, Sep 24, 2012, at 12:31 PM

Then Spaniard said:

"I said (he) will be re-elected. He will. Should be impeached? By my standards. But not yours. (YOU LIE!) You and your bunch didn't even want 9/11 investigated (YOU LIE!). Bush probably should have been impeached. But you guys failed to act (YOU LIE!). Hard to turn around and say Obama should be impeached for this. But my standards are higher than yours I guess (YOU LIE!)."

-- Posted by Spaniard on Mon, Sep 24, 2012, at 12:37 PM

You said I - and many others - didn't want 9/11 investigated. YOU LIE!. You said I failed to act. YOU LIE! I'll quote you directly and I'll await your usual cowardice in not responding:

"Sorry Spaniard. You made a very clear, definitive statement. No way two ways to slice. I never said I didn't support investigating Bush. But you claim that I did. I have done no such thing. You simply made it up. You made a statement of fact that that you knew to be false or likely to false. You intentionally did so."

Your games are silly. You have been diminished to parroting 3rd grades playground statements. By your own standard you are a liar. Pure and simple. I never ever said I didn't want to investigate Bush. I never ever said Bush should not be impeached. Where did I say that?

Spaniard is a liar.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Feb 15, 2013, at 9:49 AM

Spaniard? You challenged. I met with your very standards. Cat got your tongue?

You lied.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Feb 15, 2013, at 11:15 AM

Is this Thread regarding Senator Rubio or who is , or is not , a liar? -- Posted by Dissident. on Fri, Feb 15, 2013, at 12:14 PM

It was about Rubio until Spaniard got questioned (see "?" above) and couldn't handle it - instead of responding to the question.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Feb 15, 2013, at 2:31 PM

DOn't back down from this challenge. -- Posted by Spaniard on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 9:28 AM

Challenge met at -- Posted by Dug on Fri, Feb 15, 2013, at 9:49 AM

You're response?

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Feb 16, 2013, at 12:22 PM

DOn't back down from this challenge. -- Posted by Spaniard on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 9:28 AM

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Feb 16, 2013, at 12:42 PM


Respond to this thread

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account , enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Want to comment?

In order to participate in semissourian.com's forums, you must be a registered member of the site. Once registered and logged in, you can post comments to existing threads or post new threads of your own. Click below to register now (it's free!). If you're already registered, just start commenting and posting threads.