The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

JiminTexas · January 11, 2011, 09:43 PM

Does MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving have the right to effectively add to the fines and punishments metted out to those convicted of DWI? No, I think not, but they do. I am very sorry that people are killed in drunk driving accidents. I don't do it and I do not condone it. But, in California if you are convicted of DWI you must attend a seminar put on by MADD where they tell you what a bad person you are. The talk/lecture/berating is supposedly free, but if you don't give them the "suggested $10.00 donation", the police officer taking down the names of the participants "forgets" to write in your name. I saw on the Lawrence O'Donnel Show last night where a Congresswoman, whose name I cannot remember was railing against "high capacity" magazines. She was, of course, talking about the shooting of Gabrielle Gifford in Tucson over the weekend. She is an "advocate" of gun control. It seems that her husband was killed in a shooting incident on the Long Island Railway. I'm sorry for that too, but does it give her the right to abrogate my Second Ammendment rights? I think not. She had the nerve to say that banning high capacity magazines is NOT gun control because the magazine is only a part of the gun. Who is she trying to kid? She also went on to sensationalise the story in Tucson by saying that the shooter had "many more magazines in his pocket". Just how many 30 round Glock magazines can you fit in a jeans pocket? As usual with these ople she had her facts wrong. The shooter did have one more magazine, but not "many more". I'm not trying to limit her First ammendment rights to free speech, I'm just saying that just because she or Mrs. Brady or anyone else that has suffered a tradgedy should limit their grief to themselves and their family and not try to extend it to the rest of the world. On another note, I am totally disapointed with Lawrence O'Donnel. He congradulated the Congresswoman on taking "the only stand that is the correct response to the terrible tradgedy of the Tucson shooting". It is a terrible tradgedy, but let's not overreact. Here are a few "facts" that the news media in general have gotten wrong.
1. The derranged man that did the shooting bought his gun legally. NO HE DIDN'T. He lied on his NICS form that he was not a drug user. He had only a month or so before been rejected from military saervice because he failed a drug test. It is FELONY to lie on the NICS form and why didn't the military report him to NICS?
2. He was thrown out of his school for disruptive and dangerous behavior and told that he could not return until he had had a psyciatric review. Why wasn't this referred to authorities. He was known to be unstable and potentially dangerous.

What is the purpose of this post? It is to ask, "Why are we controlling the guns and not the gunmen?" We don't need any more gun control. We need gunman control.

January 11, 2011, 09:43 PM	#1
JiminTexas Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2010 Posts: 149	They have the right? No! No they don't Does MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving have the right to effectively add to the fines and punishments metted out to those convicted of DWI? No, I think not, but they do. I am very sorry that people are killed in drunk driving accidents. I don't do it and I do not condone it. But, in California if you are convicted of DWI you must attend a seminar put on by MADD where they tell you what a bad person you are. The talk/lecture/berating is supposedly free, but if you don't give them the "suggested $10.00 donation", the police officer taking down the names of the participants "forgets" to write in your name. I saw on the Lawrence O'Donnel Show last night where a Congresswoman, whose name I cannot remember was railing against "high capacity" magazines. She was, of course, talking about the shooting of Gabrielle Gifford in Tucson over the weekend. She is an "advocate" of gun control. It seems that her husband was killed in a shooting incident on the Long Island Railway. I'm sorry for that too, but does it give her the right to abrogate my Second Ammendment rights? I think not. She had the nerve to say that banning high capacity magazines is NOT gun control because the magazine is only a part of the gun. Who is she trying to kid? She also went on to sensationalise the story in Tucson by saying that the shooter had "many more magazines in his pocket". Just how many 30 round Glock magazines can you fit in a jeans pocket? As usual with these ople she had her facts wrong. The shooter did have one more magazine, but not "many more". I'm not trying to limit her First ammendment rights to free speech, I'm just saying that just because she or Mrs. Brady or anyone else that has suffered a tradgedy should limit their grief to themselves and their family and not try to extend it to the rest of the world. On another note, I am totally disapointed with Lawrence O'Donnel. He congradulated the Congresswoman on taking "the only stand that is the correct response to the terrible tradgedy of the Tucson shooting". It is a terrible tradgedy, but let's not overreact. Here are a few "facts" that the news media in general have gotten wrong. 1. The derranged man that did the shooting bought his gun legally. NO HE DIDN'T. He lied on his NICS form that he was not a drug user. He had only a month or so before been rejected from military saervice because he failed a drug test. It is FELONY to lie on the NICS form and why didn't the military report him to NICS? 2. He was thrown out of his school for disruptive and dangerous behavior and told that he could not return until he had had a psyciatric review. Why wasn't this referred to authorities. He was known to be unstable and potentially dangerous. What is the purpose of this post? It is to ask, "Why are we controlling the guns and not the gunmen?" We don't need any more gun control. We need gunman control. Last edited by JiminTexas; January 11, 2011 at 09:49 PM.