|

A powerful ad for gun control

I eagerly await responses from gun nuts to this video.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/LORVfnFtcH0[/youtube]

Share:

7 Comments

  1. I can’t respond because the Constitution does not cover things like the internet or even video since those were not around at that time either.

    If you want to talk about a person carrying a gun into a work place and shooting up the place. Let’s have that discussion, not about how to limit the method. It is like banning the internet because people can do harm with it, we should all go back to handset printing presses. Let’s look at the person and not the tool.

  2. Brian Opsahl

    Yes, Carl…look at the person in doing a quick background check and if he or she is not a mental patent,wife beater,felon or violent person, then give them what the law allows…no big deal…

  3. Robert

    Regarding the mass shooting at the church in So. Carolina, the president said (I must agree, it’s a truly horrible tragedy),

    “”Now is the time for mourning and healing, but let’s be clear: At some point, we as a country, will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency,” the president said as he stood next to Vice President Joe Biden. “It is in our power to do something about it… I say that recognizing the politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues right now.”

    If I recall right, wasn’t there a guy in Sweden that shot to death a huge amount of school children? And what about the mass killings in going on in the middle east over supremacy? And what about those eastern European nations? Wasn’t there an auditorium full of people held hostage and quite a few died?

    I also hear cries for labeling this shooting incident an act of terrorism. I’m ok with that, but just a few days ago I was also thinking the same thing about the daily Black gang shootings I read about, where entire neighborhoods are are war zones and people don’t even feel safe in their living rooms for fear of stray bullets from gang members randomly shooting from their cars? What about labeling that activity terrorism too?

    Isn’t it time our nation has this conversation and we can express our concerns and fears without being labeled a racists or a bigot?

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/charleston-church-shooting/charleston-church-shooting-president-obama-deliver-remarks-n377726

    • Robert

      So the FBI Director doesn’t think the shooting of 9 people doesn’t fit the definition of what a terrorist action would be. I do but I also think the following:

      I’d like to know why the ongoing daily shootings in the mostly Black neighborhoods and sometimes overflowing into the general communities, that kill and injure people and destroy the livability of entire communities isn’t considered domestic terrorism? I bet people in those communities feel terrorized on a daily basis. I bet the drive by shootings that happen in numerous neighborhoods on both the east and west sides of town have many people afraid to use the part of the house that faces the street. How can that kind of day to day existence and the accompanying fear not be considered domestic terrorism too?

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3133472/FBI-director-criticized-saying-Charleston-church-shooting-NOT-act-terrorism.html

      • AmazingScott

        Because terrorism is something that is done with a political end in mind. Do a little harm to create a lot of panic which will cause people to change how they do something. The gang bangers are just punk criminals even though the fear they create is no different than the other. Terrorism is a (despicable) means to an end, but criminal activity is nothing more than bad behavior causing problems on a smaller, more localized scale. By over-using the word ‘terrorism’ you take away it’s significance when you really need it.

  4. Robert

    Patrick, Why is the Applesauce blog not part of the RRS website and accessed through blogs.e-rockford.com? Is this why there’s no new participants to say on this blog? I see Chuck Sweeney’s blog is through the RRS, why not yours?

  5. AmazingScott

    I had wondered the same thing- I would have guessed that Pat was one of the RRStar’s most-clicked columns, but there’s nothing on their site from him for about a month and only a handful of us who subscribe are reading/commenting here. I wonder who Pat annoyed?… Good job, whoever it was =)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>