NY daily news on Colorado shooter(pushing disarmament)

Look at these images from the article, it downplays the cost with "for less than $1500 killing weapons can be bought" and calls protective equipment "coward's apparel" while not mentioning the cost of body armor. Why only mention the cost of the weapons and not the armor? Would a coward be the only person willing to wear body armor?




www.nydailynews.com...

Its from NY, I would say you can just about throw out any media from CA and NY, the two most anti-gun states.

Feinsteins already starting to whine about how gun control should be a major issue for the election.

Shes the local Ca senator that got the Assault rifle ban passed the first time, shes at it again.

Hopefully she will be ignored, as Both Romney and Obama are too afraid to lose votes on this issue...

Feinstein and bloomberg are so far the two leading this call...

Again CA and NY.

To places that are terrified that citizens of other states can still own guns...

reply to post by liquiddrewl


I'm sorry but I find it ironically hilarious that the gear/pictures listed are exactly what our police wear...its even hilarious because it says "cowards armor", if someone didn't know any better they would probably think this is something an "Occupy Protestor" designed during the protests...

lol its so bad and ironic its hilarious

Gun control is in the crosshairs. (obviously i'm playing with words)

It's easy to blame it. I didn't have to look long on this a while back when I researched some of the previous massacres by people who used the extra ammo handguns.

Too many states don't do good background checks and people who shouldn't get guns get them.

HOWEVER, even though it's obvious that gun control needs to be stricter, what's not so obvious is if we restrict gun licenses more will this just make these persons get illegal guns instead?

I mean, will this stop them from getting guns or will they just get illegal guns?

Gun control activists often point out that in countries where guns are strictly controlled violent crime is far less. The problem I have with this logic is it might be far less irregardless of gun control. Basically, in some countries people are less violent, for whatever reason not listed here. Guns are not the cause. So if we strictly control gun licenses in the US, it might not reduce violent crime.

We have to be careful using what works in another country in a different country. Despite pluralist-thinking, not all countries are the same and won't respond equally to similar conditions. What this means is they cannot have equal law systems and cultural beliefs. They need different answers.

Maybe in some far off future the pluralists are right and everybody on the planet can live under the same law system and cultural tie. Everybody will have the same rights and freedoms.

But having those things now is just not possible in my mind. The world is not prepared for it. Forcing it prematurely is going to cause more problems than good. We have to treat different nations/cultures as different species and realize they require different policies and methods to survive.

Gooooooood! So now, we can expect the police to be carrying batons and be packin' taser guns, right? The lawmakers and politicians should: LEAD BY EXAMPLE, you friggin' HYPOCRITES!!!!

Show us how to live right, masser! Wez slaves dont knows hows to act. Wez ignant and unedumacated!

ETA: They armed the population for a REASON! I seriously doubt that reason was for hunting. Have we forgotten, the PTB, plan their stuff 100's of years in ADVANCE? I wouldn't doubt it, if the founding "fathers", are all part of the plan. Heck, look at how America became America. It STOLE someone else's "land", and had slaves build it! You think something has changed?