NJR: Shootings at Virginia Tech Worst in US History

[This is a pen]

[Taro Toporific]

I pray him for his happiness in the next world, whom he missed becoming a hero."

[American Oyaji]

Armed Miss America 1944 stops intruder Fri Apr 20, 8:16 PM ET



Miss America 1944 has a talent that likely has never appeared on a beauty pageant stage: She fired a handgun to shoot out a vehicle's tires and stop an intruder.

Venus Ramey, 82, confronted a man on her farm in south-central Kentucky last week after she saw her dog run into a storage building where thieves had previously made off with old farm equipment.

Ramey said the man told her he would leave. "I said, 'Oh, no you won't,' and I shot their tires so they couldn't leave," Ramey said.

She had to balance on her walker as she pulled out a snub-nosed .38-caliber handgun.

"I didn't even think twice. I just went and did it," she said. "If they'd even dared come close to me, they'd be 6 feet under by now."

Ramey then flagged down a passing motorist, who called 911.

Curtis Parrish of Ohio was charged with misdemeanor trespassing, Deputy Dan Gilliam said. The man's hometown wasn't immediately available. Three other people were questioned but were not arrested.

After winning the pageant with her singing, dancing and comedic talents, Ramey sold war bonds and her picture was adorned on a B-17 that made missions over Germany in World War II, according to the Miss America Web site.

Ramey lived in Cincinnati for several years and was instrumental in helping rejuvenate Over-the-Rhine historic buildings. She returned to Kentucky in 1990 to live on her farm.

"I'm trying to live a quiet, peaceful life and stay out of trouble, and all it is, is one thing after another," she said.

___

God Bless her!

[GuyJean]

Nukes tend to have a bit more collateral damage than pistols.

Really?

Estimate of mass killings in the 20th Century: 215,786,000

Etimate of mass killings from nuclear weapons: 214,000

GJ

[GuyJean]

Actually, most 'hippies' where I grew up owned guns; they needed protection from animals and dumb rednecks.

GJ

[Buraku]

Yeah, banning handguns makes everything safer.

I agree with your feelings but this Korean-American guy was obviously an insane nut, how did he get his hands on guns in the first place ?

And the world would be safer if all countries had nukes]
Uncle Sam already has nukes - for a long time
and for some reason that never made any of those kamikaze ayatollah's think twice about their actions

or any of the other insane that come from the radical muslim world

Really?

Estimate of mass killings in the 20th Century: 215,786,000

Etimate of mass killings from nuclear weapons: 214,000

GJ

The AK47 for example has been used millions of times in combat, or in murderous crime... resulting in many deaths
nukes have only been used twice, yet they cuased hundreds of thousands dead and almost half a million injured.
The nukes the USA or the likes of Russia have these days are so powerful that they would make the little-boy look like a wee firecracker

"Also, why aren't we grieving the same way for the people who are dying in Iraq? Iraq just suffered a suicide bombing that killed 5 times as many people"

You're right Iraq goes through this kinda sh*t everyday,
but we have known Iraq is a fucked-up for some while, and chaos in Iraq is old news and besides it's mostly Iraqis that are dying in their streets not young American school students.

[Takechanpoo]

your way of expression is always circuitous.
i know you are afraid of me.
apparently your activity in FG.com became weak since i appeared.
BUHAHA

May I quote your translation on my blog?

katte ni shiro, Uncle Baldhead.

[Greji]

i know you are afraid of me.

I seriously doubt you'll find the answer to that question behind your keyboard Taketanbo!

[AssKissinger]

Really?

Estimate of mass killings in the 20th Century: 215,786,000

Etimate of mass killings from nuclear weapons: 214,000

GJ

Nukes make a bigger boomboom.

[Adhesive]

Actually, if every country had nukes it probably would deter war between nation states. Look at the Cold-war. The potential for mass carnage is so high that smaller skirmishes are avoided, less they trigger mutual annihilation.

I'm on the fence about gun-rights in the U.S. On one hand, it's an actual, express, fundamental right enumerated in our constitution. I mean, we protect rights as being fundamental when they are only vaguely hinted at in the constitution (abortion, sodomy, etc.) so it seems to me that the Supreme Court would really be venturing into political territory if they upheld a law banning all firearms.

On the other hand, we could amend the the constitution, and if that happened I would feel slightly more comfortable giving up my rights; at least it was removed from me per the express instructions of the constitution and the populous, through our elected representatives, had a say in the matter.

But you non-Americans have to remember, the birth of our country hinged on the ability of our citizens to arm themselves and rebel against an oppressive government, and the idea of the public being able to arm themselves against tyranny runs deep. I'm not saying everyone who buys a gun does it because they fear an over-reaching government, but a lot of liberal people like myself are hesitant to remove the right to arms because we actually still recognize the potential for tyranny.

Obviously, not many of my liberal friends agree, which strikes me as strange considering how they are always complaining that this current administration is trampling all over are rights.

One last things on the topic; Banning guns will not eliminate guns, just like banning drugs doesn't eliminate drugs. I really don't see how anyone can claim otherwise. By the time I was 13 I knew where to easily score pretty much any substance I desired. It may possibly make the extremely rare killing spree even rarer, or perhaps less deadly, but mainly it will just turn millions of law abiding individuals into criminals. IMO any hypothetical benefit is outweighed by the impracticality of the enforcement and the burden of stripping away yet another personal right to live your life as you wish so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others. Frankly, I'm tired of being told what I can and cannot have simply because a tiny, minute, percentage of the population is not responsible (or mentally stable) enough to handle it. I'm pretty sure more kids drown in swimming pools across this country every year than are killed by firearms, does that mean households with children should no longer be able to have swimming pools? What about cars? Shouldn't we all be riding mass transit? Where do we draw the line?

[kamome]

Hey Pen, where;ve you been this whole time? Uhhuh has been taking all the abuse without you to give him moral support!

[Uhhuh35]

Deleted duplicate post.

[Uhhuh35]

[quote="kamome"]Hey Pen, where]

Don't worry about me, you guys ain't so bad.
Hey I found a good bumper sticker for you libs though:



Maybe you can put a similar one on your front lawn: "Homeowner Is Unarmed. Please Don't Hurt Me" That should work especially well for you guys in the big cities.

[Hokgwai]

......

[Mike Oxlong]

But you non-Americans have to remember, the birth of our country hinged on the ability of our citizens to arm themselves and rebel against an oppressive government, and the idea of the public being able to arm themselves against tyranny runs deep. I'm not saying everyone who buys a gun does it because they fear an over-reaching government, but a lot of liberal people like myself are hesitant to remove the right to arms because we actually still recognize the potential for tyranny.

Obviously, not many of my liberal friends agree, which strikes me as strange considering how they are always complaining that this current administration is trampling all over are rights.

I would so like to see Americans rise up and use their personal/militia stockpiles against their gov't

... I'm pretty sure more kids drown in swimming pools across this country every year than are killed by firearms, does that mean households with children should no longer be able to have swimming pools? What about cars? Shouldn't we all be riding mass transit? Where do we draw the line?

Some stats to back that up would bolster your argument. A pool can't be used as a weapon (it's not like Cho coulda pushed all those complete strangers into a pool), but a car certainly can be. Tough to conceal a car, but...

[Greji]

Don't worry about me, you guys ain't so bad.
Hey I found a good bumper sticker for you libs though:



Maybe you can put a similar one on your front lawn: "Homeowner Is Unarmed. Please Don't Hurt Me" That should work especially well for you guys in the big cities.

You shouldn't really post this. The pussy party will now want to use this as a slogan for the next election, since they have declared the Iraq War lost and need new talking points!

[Kuang_Grade]

But you non-Americans have to remember, the birth of our country hinged on the ability of our citizens to arm themselves and rebel against an oppressive government, and the idea of the public being able to arm themselves against tyranny runs deep. I'm not saying everyone who buys a gun does it because they fear an over-reaching government, but a lot of liberal people like myself are hesitant to remove the right to arms because we actually still recognize the potential for tyranny.

I know what you are saying but you're waxing a little too poetic on this.....Using this line of thought, Canada should be brisling with guns....The tyranny of Britain in the Colonial US infinitely pales to the tyranny enforced by US colonials on the pro-British folks after the war...frequently, US monarchists were basically given a day or two to get out of of town or they would be killed...Most of them lost their land and property and a good chunk of them went to settle in Canada. And the US colonials were reasonably well armed prior to the revolution because they had spend a fair bit of the 1700's fighting/killing off Indians

And while the concept of gun ownership keeping the government in check is a nice romantic notion, modern military weapons are no match for rifles or handguns. They'll keep off low level repression (or at least make it more costly), but I would propose that most people don't buy guns to be ready to fight the government if needed (that's really just too high brow for most folks outside of NRA nuts or white supremacists in Idaho nor did David Koresh's guns at Waco do him much good either)....People buy guns so they'll be ready to protect themselves when the government fails because they are far more worried about their fellow citizens (precisely because a sizeable number of them are already armed) rather than the government.

[GomiGirl]

People buy guns so they'll be ready to protect themselves when the government fails because they are far more worried about their fellow citizens (precisely because a sizeable number of them are already armed) rather than the government.

People buy guns because they like guns. Don't try to sugar coat it or over analyse it.

All this "right to bear arms" or protection or whatever is a bunch of hooey IMHO.

Why people like guns, I do not know. Ironic really as I grew up in a house with guns and I was taught to shoot at an early age - my father was in the millitary and although a vet and a professional soldier of over 20 years was fairly anti-war, peacekeeping and defence certainly, but pre-emptive strikes are just belligerent. He thinks the army is a good institution and provides excellent opportunities as a career and training.

I too tried to enlist when I was at university however, they could only offer me a place in the typing pool or in the band so I was uninterested in this. I wanted to go into the bush and drive trucks and hang out with the guys and shoot guns etc. But this is completely different to wanting a personal arsenal to feel big and important and powerful like this nut at Virginia Tech.

Guns don't make you powerful.

[Ol Dirty Gaijin]

Gun Control is Bullshit
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=409_1176853869

[dimwit]

To me the fun about defending the 2nd amendment is that so few people understand the times in which the writers of the constitution lived. During the 1770-1780 the technology of gun had been more or less static since the War of the Spanish Sucession. A markersman of the time could be expected to shoot about 2-3 rounds a minute. No framer of the constitution would have imagined an age of assault rifles.

There seems to always be two types of guns buyers -people who need them for a living (farmers, hunters, policemen, etc.) and the they tend to view guns as a tool, and the fearful, who by nature are neurotic. Why anyone outside the miltary or police need a handgun is to me a sign of pretty fucked up mind.

[kamome]

Since the 4th Amendment's protections against illegal searches and seizures can be - and has been - diluted in light of modern police procedures and exigencies, the 2nd Amendment is equally fair ground for reinterpretation IMO.

As dimwit says, the 2nd amendment was written at a vastly different time and to claim that it should be interpreted literally is hogwash. Everything in the Constitution has been reinterpreted over the years to account for the changing times.

[Kuang_Grade]

[IkemenTommy]

The pussy party...

Hey, those two go hand in hand.

[Greji]

Hey, cars kill more people than guns, so ban cars while you're at it. People don't like guns, I do. Why do they have any more right to dictate that dislike to me, than I have to force my opinion on them? Oh, I forgot, I can cause I got a gun!

[Charles]

If that was the case, gun sales wouldn't spike after things like the LA riots and Katrina.

Oh don't get me started. I was there during the LA riots. Gangs started the fires to distract police and fire services while they raided gun shops. It is estimated that over 50,000 guns were stolen during the first few hours of the riots.

[AssKissinger]

This message is hidden because Charles is on your ignore list.

Suck my dick cockknock

[kamome]

Hey, cars kill more people than guns, so ban cars while you're at it. People don't like guns, I do. Why do they have any more right to dictate that dislike to me, than I have to force my opinion on them? Oh, I forgot, I can cause I got a gun!

C'mon boothie, be a little less disingenuous! There's no slippery slope here. Why are cars manufactured and why are guns manufactured? Two very different reasons. I think everyone would agree that the utility of cars far outweighs the dangers they pose, which is why they're not banned. But what is the utility of making and owning guns? To satisfy hobbyists, maybe even for people's protection, but the need for hobbies and safety can be satisfied through other channels.

[Behan]

...beyond the stereotype that we're all gun toting maniacs with hard ons for guns that seems quite prevalent in the world view...

I want to say that, too. In the US I rarely saw guns except if I happened to see a police officer. Nearly all of my relatives and friends didn't have guns. I think were all uncomfortable to be around them. They scare the shit out of me.
Most people who had guns where I lived only had hunting guns, rifles or shotguns, and not pistols. At least I think so.

[AssKissinger]

Since the 4th Amendment's protections against illegal searches and seizures can be - and has been - diluted in light of modern police procedures and exigencies, the 2nd Amendment is equally fair ground for reinterpretation IMO

WTF? You think that since we've pissed away our right to privacy we should give up our other rights as well?

I know freedom is scary but I say what the fuck let's go for it anyway!

[Buraku]

This message is hidden because Charles is on your ignore list.

Suck my dick cockknock

I always knew the ass-kisser had some kind of constant homo-erotic fantasy going on,
but never knew it was 'Charles' who was the traget of AssKissinger's homsexual desires.