By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - While NRA Was on TV Talking About Need for More Guns, Another Mass Shooting was Occurring in Pennsylvania

sc94597 said:
LinkVPit said:
sc94597 said:
LinkVPit said:
sc94597 said:
LinkVPit said:

The fact that you need a gun to stay safe must be a trigger to say something isn't right?

And yes people are responsible for the actions, but would that tragedy have happened or been less if he had a knife or other weapon? Chances are no or less deaths at least.

We have gun laws in the UK and last time I checked we haven't had a gun massacre. How many have the US had?

Nope, I view it as a signature that I live in a free society and I have individual power over my own life; the world's not a utopia. How safe would you have been 150 years ago when you were considered a subject of the British Empire? Probably very safe, but at the same time I wouldn't have considered you a free person. The only reason you live how you are today is beause if Britain became an oligarchy again the U.S (and other countries) would dissaprove and voice it through relations of all kinds, because of our ridiculous international policy to be in everybody elses business at the expense of our own people. 

You already agreed that it's impossible to get rid of guns in the U.S (30% of the world's arms), so the discussion is kind of moot. 

Anyway, my safety is quite fine. The homicide rate of my county is nearly zero, and the violent crime rate is much less than, say, London's. Why is this? Because most people have guns and a burglary is not worth dieing for. 

Well I live in a free society, I think they call them a democracy .You also live in one! And the 65 million who live here don't need one and those that do get a licence! If you bought that into the US it would be a start.

A democracy is bordered by mob rule, and democracies always self-destruct. Like I said, your country has had a history of oligarchy, what keeps it from reverting? Certainly not an unarmed populous. Just look at the censorship that happens in the UK. People get arrested for internet posts. I live in a constitutional republic, a governmental system in which the individual has power over his own life without the fear of the mob. Things have been changing recently, but I'm glad to say that we still have some time to preserve this before it is lost forever and I'll keep fighting to do so. 


Sorry, what arseholes we are about arresting people over rascist tweets! But then again being racist is also ok in th US!

It might start with racists, but who says it ends with them? A truly free society is an egalitarian one, and certainly this is not equal representation on the UK's end. But anyway, you can have your government control you in YOUR country and I'll have my people control my government in mine. 


I think we're ok, we're not ruled by gun-toters in congress! Enjoy being gunned down for no reason.

All I've learned is don't argue guns with Americans.



Around the Network

I do hope this won't trigger any nervous twitchy behavior and people start shooting innocent teens/twenties just because they thought he had a gun and was going to go out on a spree.. be safe my american vgchartz friends



 

Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!) 

LinkVPit said:
killerzX said:
LinkVPit said:
killerzX said:
sc94597 said:

not all are mine: my personal collection is: Ak-47, SCAR 17s, Glock 19 gen 4, and i forgot about my Ruger 10-22.

the other guns are my older brothers: AK-74, Glock 17, Henry repeater, smith and wesson .38.

younger brother: AR-15, Glock 19, mossberg 500.

its called a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.

how i spend my money is none of your concern.

why do you need a car that can go over 65 mph, why do you need a home bigger than 300 square feet, why do you need so may video games.

 

what i chose to buy with my own money, i up to me. and what can i say i like diversity. so i buy as much as i can. why would i only choose one, when there are so many good ones to chose from. some are good for only limited specific things, i need one for every occasion.

So to keep yourself 'safe' you need 2 assault rifles, a handgun and a smith and wesson? Who are you protecting yourself from? A bloody invasion?

unfortunately i dont own any assualt rifles. I own personally 4 guns. i pretty much only use my Glock for home defense, rifles arent ideal for home defense situations, to long in tight corridors... my other guns are for hunting, target shooting, and above all FUN.

 Also comparing a car to a gun really? I buy games coz they're fun and oh yeah I can't go to a school and kill people with them!

im just talking about "needs; here, but anyway im sure you can get creative with the games. but you can kill somebody with a car, which is why they kill 4x as many people as guns do. 

I couldn't care less what you spend your money on. But 4-5 guns really?

yes

You're the reason gun control will never happen in the US. You've commented or started many threads about guns and amazingly you want nothing to change about gun laws in america. I'm guessing your a member of the NRA?

No i do want change in the gun laws, i want improved background checks, stricter punishment for people who break the law with a firearm, and a ban on "gun free zones", among other things,

and no im not a member of the NRA, they are one of the more anti-gun, gun-rights groups out there, and their people have scorned me more than once with defeating legislation in my state that would have returned some of our constitutional rights. but my brother is an NRA member, one of us had to, it was a condition of joining the gun club/shooting we go to.



LinkVPit said:

I think we're ok, we're not ruled by gun-toters in congress! Enjoy being gunned down for no reason.

All I've learned is don't argue guns with Americans.


That's silly, why would somebody who has a gun and lives in a low homicide area be gunned down? It's the people without guns who become the victims of gun crime.  All I know is that my federal government wants to take away my right to due process of law (NDAA), free speech (Patriot's Act), property rights, etc. And if it weren't for my constitution and just as importantly, my right to bear arms, they would have by now. Gun prohibition would be the destruction of my way of life (American) and it is quite apparant. 



sc94597 said:
LinkVPit said:

I think we're ok, we're not ruled by gun-toters in congress! Enjoy being gunned down for no reason.

All I've learned is don't argue guns with Americans.


That's silly, why would somebody who has a gun and lives in a low homicide area be gunned down? It's the people without guns who become the victims of gun crime.  All I know is that my federal government wants to take away my right to due process of law (NDAA), free speech (Patriot's Act), property rights, etc. And if it weren't for my constitution and just as importantly, my right to bear arms, they would have by now. Gun prohibition would be the destruction of my way of life (American) and it is quite apparant. 

Your right to bear arms has dick all to do with what the federal government will or won't do to you.

Get this through your heads now, gun nuts. No military is scared of you.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
killerzX said:
LinkVPit said:
killerzX said:
LinkVPit said:
killerzX said:
sc94597 said:

I think this is how things should go.

-- Restrict military grade weapons to people who join a militia: either the official (state regulated one - National guard) or an unofficial militia.

-- Make sure the common population has access to basic weapons without joining an organized militia: handguns, basic rifles, etc.

This will do two things. Limit the number of weapons out there under irresponsible ownership, and encourage responsible owners to join militias, which is a good thing and is promoted by our constitution.

Not only would this decrease the chances of a lunatic accessing weapons, but it will reinstate the proper respect for human lives and weapon use that our nations (as in its definition of peoples - U.S is not a nation-state) once had.

This would be smart legislation that works, and it would transition the U.S into something a bit more like Switzerland.

The only reason why nobody would push for this is because liberals want to ban guns entirely and neo-conservatives want to centralize the military power within the standing military. The paleo-conservatives, known as the tea party, would be a minority in this battle. So the next best thing is to keep things how they are until the dust settles and proper judgement can be made without extreme emotions influencing decisions.


well the thing is any able body person can be a militia.... me with my guns is a militia. so i agree. i should be able to keep my Ak-47, AK-74, SCAR-17s, Glock 19 gen 4, Glock 19, Glock 17, Henry Repeater, AR-15, Mossberg 500, and smith and wesson .38 special. i just need more ammo, i only have ~1500 7.62 rounds, 700 .308 rounds, 1000 9mm rounds, 1200 5.45 rounds, 300 5.56. im running low

Is that really your gun collection?

That alone is reason for some form of gun control/law. Do you really need all them weapons, the answer is no.

No wonder you defend gun rights so much, your a fucking gun nut!

not all are mine: my personal collection is: Ak-47, SCAR 17s, Glock 19 gen 4, and i forgot about my Ruger 10-22.

the other guns are my older brothers: AK-74, Glock 17, Henry repeater, smith and wesson .38.

younger brother: AR-15, Glock 19, mossberg 500.

its called a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.

how i spend my money is none of your concern.

why do you need a car that can go over 65 mph, why do you need a home bigger than 300 square feet, why do you need so may video games.

 

what i chose to buy with my own money, i up to me. and what can i say i like diversity. so i buy as much as i can. why would i only choose one, when there are so many good ones to chose from. some are good for only limited specific things, i need one for every occasion.

So to keep yourself 'safe' you need 2 assault rifles, a handgun and a smith and wesson? Who are you protecting yourself from? A bloody invasion?

unfortunately i dont own any assualt rifles. I own personally 4 guns. i pretty much only use my Glock for home defense, rifles arent ideal for home defense situations, to long in tight corridors... my other guns are for hunting, target shooting, and above all FUN.

 Also comparing a car to a gun really? I buy games coz they're fun and oh yeah I can't go to a school and kill people with them!

im just talking about "needs; here, but anyway im sure you can get creative with the games. but you can kill somebody with a car, which is why they kill 4x as many people as guns do. 

I couldn't care less what you spend your money on. But 4-5 guns really?

yes

You're the reason gun control will never happen in the US. You've commented or started many threads about guns and amazingly you want nothing to change about gun laws in america. I'm guessing your a member of the NRA?

No i do want change in the gun laws, i want improved background checks, stricter punishment for people who break the law with a firearm, and a ban on "gun free zones", among other things,

and no im not a member of the NRA, they are one of the more anti-gun, gun-rights groups out there, and their people have scorned me more than once with defeating legislation in my state that would have returned some of our constitutional rights. but my brother is an NRA member, one of us had to, it was a condition of joining the gun club/shooting we go to.

Whats an AK-74 or a SCAR then? Coz I know guns and they're Assault rifles! The AK may be a sub-machine gun. Are they semi's?

You want a ban on gun free zones? Great choice.

Why do you have that many guns? Does it make you feel like you have 'power'?

You can kill someone with a boiled sweet whats your point? Cars are more helpful to the world than an civilian with an AK! 



blaming everything and everyone but the fool who pulled the trigger.



Mr Khan said:
sc94597 said:
LinkVPit said:

I think we're ok, we're not ruled by gun-toters in congress! Enjoy being gunned down for no reason.

All I've learned is don't argue guns with Americans.


That's silly, why would somebody who has a gun and lives in a low homicide area be gunned down? It's the people without guns who become the victims of gun crime.  All I know is that my federal government wants to take away my right to due process of law (NDAA), free speech (Patriot's Act), property rights, etc. And if it weren't for my constitution and just as importantly, my right to bear arms, they would have by now. Gun prohibition would be the destruction of my way of life (American) and it is quite apparant. 

Your right to bear arms has dick all to do with what the federal government will or won't do to you.

Get this through your heads now, gun nuts. No military is scared of you.

That's because the military is on our side right now. Every poll they overwhelmingly vote no to taking away people's guns, even if the federal government ordered it. If the people weren't armed, would the military be on our side? In fact, most "gun nuts" are or have been part of the military, which is the case on the militia website I frequently read discussions on. It's not the military who would take away guns. It's the federal agents (FBI, in example) , and certainly no sheriff today takes crap from them, neither would 100 million gun owners. 



sc94597 said:
Mr Khan said:
sc94597 said:
LinkVPit said:

I think we're ok, we're not ruled by gun-toters in congress! Enjoy being gunned down for no reason.

All I've learned is don't argue guns with Americans.


That's silly, why would somebody who has a gun and lives in a low homicide area be gunned down? It's the people without guns who become the victims of gun crime.  All I know is that my federal government wants to take away my right to due process of law (NDAA), free speech (Patriot's Act), property rights, etc. And if it weren't for my constitution and just as importantly, my right to bear arms, they would have by now. Gun prohibition would be the destruction of my way of life (American) and it is quite apparant. 

Your right to bear arms has dick all to do with what the federal government will or won't do to you.

Get this through your heads now, gun nuts. No military is scared of you.

That's because the military is on our side right now. Every poll they overwhelmingly vote no to taking away people's guns, even if the federal government ordered it. If the people weren't armed, would the military be on our side? In fact, most "gun nuts" are or have been part of the military, which is the case on the militia website I frequently read discussions on. It's not the military who would take away guns. It's the federal agents (FBI, in example) , and certain no sheriff today takes crap from them, neither would 100 million gun owners. 

Sheriffs who don't take "crap" from FBI agents are reprimanded, and possibly brought up on Federal charges. It's called the supremacy clause for a reason.

If anything, i'm mighty suspicious of how our military trains all these shady people and then just sort of lets them loose to do whatever. There have already been investigations about ex-military folks joining radical militias or racist groups.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan said:
sc94597 said:
Mr Khan said:
sc94597 said:
LinkVPit said:

I think we're ok, we're not ruled by gun-toters in congress! Enjoy being gunned down for no reason.

All I've learned is don't argue guns with Americans.


That's silly, why would somebody who has a gun and lives in a low homicide area be gunned down? It's the people without guns who become the victims of gun crime.  All I know is that my federal government wants to take away my right to due process of law (NDAA), free speech (Patriot's Act), property rights, etc. And if it weren't for my constitution and just as importantly, my right to bear arms, they would have by now. Gun prohibition would be the destruction of my way of life (American) and it is quite apparant. 

Your right to bear arms has dick all to do with what the federal government will or won't do to you.

Get this through your heads now, gun nuts. No military is scared of you.

That's because the military is on our side right now. Every poll they overwhelmingly vote no to taking away people's guns, even if the federal government ordered it. If the people weren't armed, would the military be on our side? In fact, most "gun nuts" are or have been part of the military, which is the case on the militia website I frequently read discussions on. It's not the military who would take away guns. It's the federal agents (FBI, in example) , and certain no sheriff today takes crap from them, neither would 100 million gun owners. 

Sheriffs who don't take "crap" from FBI agents are reprimanded, and possibly brought up on Federal charges. It's called the supremacy clause for a reason.

If anything, i'm mighty suspicious of how our military trains all these shady people and then just sort of lets them loose to do whatever. There have already been investigations about ex-military folks joining radical militias or racist groups.

In the sheriff's county he is the supreme executive officer, not the federal agent. He is HIGHER than federal agents in local matters. 

http://goshennews.com/local/x1996142009/Middlebury-dairy-farmer-Sheriff-stand-up-to-FDA

"GOSHEN — David Hochstetler of rural Middlebury distributes raw milk to people who buy into his herd of Jersey cows. That action has drawn the ire of the Food and Drug Administration, which wants to inspect his farm because it believes it is the source of a 2010 bacteria outbreak in Michigan. But Sheriff Brad Rogers has a message for the FDA, which is “get a warrant.”


The conflict between the local and federal authorities came to a head two weeks ago when Hochstetler was summoned to testify before a federal grand jury in Detroit. He declined to appear, invoking his 5th Amendment right. Sheriff Rogers also notified the Justice Department attorney that if FDA agents tried to inspect Hochstetler’s farm without a signed warrant, they would be arrested on trespassing charges.

Since then the federal subpoena for Hochstetler has been withdrawn, according to Rogers.

The sheriff sees his action as protecting a local Amish resident, who he called “an honest man,” from being harassed by federal officials.

“The thing is that if the FDA agents come in and they meet with the farmer and the farmer wants them to come in, I don’t have a problem with that,” Rogers said. “But in this case Mr. Hochstetler did not want the agents there. This is an administrative rule of the federal government and I think people are tired of the federal government walking all over everybody and it is time to take a stand for states’ rights.”

Rogers said sheriffs across the country are beginning to resist actions by federal regulatory agencies when a warrant has not been issued. He cited a 1997 Supreme Court ruling, Printz vs. The United States, that found in favor of a sheriff who did not want to enforce the federal Brady Act gun laws. That act required local law officers to enforce the federal law. The case was based on the 10th Amendment, which states that powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the states.

“This isn’t about raw milk,” Rogers said. “It’s about fundamental rights.”

Federal stance

Ross Goldstein is the Justice Department attorney who is investigating Hochstetler’s operation. Friday he declined to comment on the case, saying federal law prohibits him from talking about grand jury cases.

“We can’t talk about it,” Goldstein said, “because there is an ongoing federal investigation.”

But Goldstein did email Rogers and warned him that interfering with a federal investigation could be prosecuted as a felony and would carry up to a three-year term in prison. Goldstein also cited the federal “supremacy clause” that the Supreme Court has interpreted as making federal rules and laws superior to local ones.

“The supremacy clause has been interpreted since the earliest days of the nation to mean that federal law trumps state law whenever the two conflict,” Goldstein wrote.

And the attorney contends that federal law specifically allows the inspection of Hochstetler’s farm without a warrant.

“Because Forest Grove Dairy manufactures, processes, packages or holds food, the provision of federal law authorizes FDA personnel to enter Mr. Hochstetler’s property,” Goldstein wrote. “Because it is a federal law, indeed an act of Congress, officers or employees of the FDA may do so lawfully without regard to any Indiana law to the contrary.”

After receiving the email, Rogers indicated he is not changing his stance. He said he has talked to county attorneys about the issue, but in the end, any action or inaction is his call.

There have been no recent attempts by the FDA to inspect Hochstetler’s farm, Rogers said. The last attempt was in March, at which time Hochstetler refused entry to the inspectors, according to the sheriff.

“He was desperate, frustrated at what he perceived as harassment,”Rogers said of Hochstetler, who contacted him for help. “This man is an Amish man, an honest man who is trying to make a living.”

When contacted by The News, Hochstetler declined to comment for this article

Others supportive

Rogers said he has been receiving new email in support of his action about every 10 minutes since word about his warning to the FDA spread across the Internet.

One of those supporters is Deborah Stockton, executive director of the National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association. Her agency is an advocate for small farmers who want to sell ag products directly to consumers. She sees Rogers as a brave man taking on the massive and powerful established agriculture industry and government agencies that support that industry.

“I think it was a brave thing for him to do,” she said. “This is increasingly occurring around the country.”

She said the FDA has taken a strong stance against the consumption of raw milk, which puts the agency in conflict with thousands of consumers who see raw milk as a nutritious and healthy alternative to pasteurized and homogenized milk.

Congress banned the sale of raw milk in 1987, so consumers have bought shares in cow herds to get around that ban.

“There are very few instances where it was proved raw milk was linked to illnesses,” Stockton said.

She also wondered why the FDA, which she claimed cited the lack of funds for other investigations, particularly an outbreak of illness traced to a peanut plant, has spent so much time going after Hochstetler.

“But they do have enough money to have a two-year undercover operation against an Amish farmer whose product has not hurt anyone,” Stockton said.

The allegations

The Michigan Department of Health believes Hochstetler’s raw milk has caused illnesses. The department issued a health warning March 19, 2010, which claimed that raw milk from Hochstetler’s Forest Grove Dairy and distributed through a food co-op in Vandalia, Mich., was the source of campylobacter, a bacteria that sickened at least 13 people in Michigan who drank the milk.

In April 2010, Hochstetler told The Goshen News that he had an independent lab test of his milk for the bacteria and nothing was found.

On Friday, a spokeswoman for the Michigan Department of Health said her department has turned over test results from that outbreak in 2010 to the FDA.

“Our epidemiological evidence points to Forest Grove, that the milk came from Forest Grove,” spokeswoman Angela Minicuci said. “From there it was turned over to FDA for investigation.”

The issue is rights

Rogers said his whole point in confronting the FDA is to protect the Constitutional rights of local residents. He indicated he wants the federal agency to go through the court system and present its evidence to a judge, who could then decide if there was enough evidence to justify the issuance of a warrant allowing the inspection of Forest Grover Dairy.

“Due process is the important part of it... Quite frankly, we have state laws and county ordinances and so on,” Rogers said. “For example, the health department does inspections. Even with those, I am very pro health department, but on the other hand, if the store owner says ‘No, I don’t want you coming in,’ they will probably close them down, and that’s fine. But they don’t have to let them come in, in the true sense of the word. They have the right to go further with their due process.”

And Rogers’ reasoning is something Stockton finds refreshing.

“Sheriff Rogers has taken on the role that we hope every sheriff in the country will take... upholding his oath of office and protecting the inalienable rights of everyone,” she said."