OT: Tragic Shooting.

[PST]

President Obama has remained consistent with his rhetoric on "gun rights" and "gun control". This is from 2011 in Arizona and he repeated much of it, word for word, in two speeches this week. I am sure his speech writers did some copy and paste into the teleprompter.

"Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that's handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our nat
ional heritage. And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible. They're our friends and neighbors. They buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for hunting or target shooting, collection or protection. And that's something that gun-safety advocates need to accept." - President Obama

I don't think the anti-gun crowd are going to get what they want from this administration.

There isn't much of a true anti-gun crowd, if by anti-gun you mean people who basically would ban private ownership of guns except by those with a special need for them. I recall the most recent surveys put that at about ten percent. President Obama occupies popular middle ground on this issue. Most Americans acknowledge the place of guns in our traditions and only want modest changes to reduce deaths without interfering too much with the interests of gun owners. Thus, there is a lot of popular support for closing the gun show loophole, banning large magazines, and banning the sale of "assault rifles," although there is much disagreement about what that means. I suspect it is that kind of program the administration will propose, and those of us with a reformist agenda in mind, not a ban, won't be disappointed. What's more, the consistency of the President's position may help get something passed, because it makes it harder to frighten the average gun hobbyist into thinking that tightening up criminal or mental health checks, for example, is just step one by anti-gun zealots determines to disarm them.

[ButtermilkBuoy]

http://www.uticaod.com/news/x2105862702 ... -shootings

Government at work:

If you live in NY State you are paying Remington to produce semi-automatic rifles whether you like it or not.

http://www.uticaod.com/news/x2105862702 ... -shootings

New York state has spent nearly $6 million over the past three years on subsidies for Remington Arms Co., the two-century-old factory in Ilion that makes firearms including semiautomatic rifles

used by the military and police and like those used in the recent mass killings in Connecticut and Webster, N.Y.

Though several elected leaders in this tough-on-guns state want tighter restrictions on those military-style weapons, none say it’s time to stop supporting the local company and risk the nearly 1,000 jobs it provides in the central New York community.

Police have not said where the guns used in the shootings (in Newtown and Webster) were manufactured. It’s possible they were made in Maine before operations moved to New York;

[chunkyfrog]

---Banning large magazines?
I know those bridal planning magazines and fashion pubs are ridiculous, but how large are we talking?
Will we be reduced to nothing bigger than Reader's Digest or that silly "health" magazine that is 60% ads?

[ButtermilkBuoy]

From an acquaintance's FB page this morning,

I went to the local gun show this morning. I arrived at 10:45, there wasn't a parking space within a half mile of the place. The line was backed up through the lobby and half way around the building. Since I really didn't need anything I just came back home. As I was leaving a traffic jam was about to start as there were many more cars coming in than were leaving.

Good luck passing any kind of gun restrictions if this is any indication of the will of the people.

[hyperlexis]

PLEASE GD LET THIS THREAD DIE ALLREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GLAD YOUR FRIEND HAS A FACEBOOK PAGE TO MUSE ON BUT HONESTLY

[2 B Sleeping Soundly]

---Banning large magazines?
I know those bridal planning magazines and fashion pubs are ridiculous, but how large are we talking?
Will we be reduced to nothing bigger than Reader's Digest or that silly "health" magazine that is 60% ads?

CF,
Please promise that if you are ever cured of SA you will still stick around here, if not for your help and wisdom, then for your much appreciated sense of humor (well at least I think so!! ). "Man, that frog could make almost anyone smile and most of them laugh too!"
John
(Pre-edited to acknowledge those here who apparently have no sense of humor or have lost it from atrophy )

[chunkyfrog]

Stolen from a desk sign: "Those who matter don't mind; those who mind, don't matter."

[2 B Sleeping Soundly]

PLEASE GD LET THIS THREAD DIE ALLREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GLAD YOUR FRIEND HAS A FACEBOOK PAGE TO MUSE ON BUT HONESTLY

Respectfully, I don't go to subjects or threads that I don't have interest in, don't agree with, or find aggravating or repulsive. By your post I would say that this thread for you probably falls under one of those. If it were me, I would just ignore it.

[hyperlexis]

PLEASE GD LET THIS THREAD DIE ALLREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GLAD YOUR FRIEND HAS A FACEBOOK PAGE TO MUSE ON BUT HONESTLY

Respectfully, I don't go to subjects or threads that I don't have interest in, don't agree with, or find aggravating or repulsive. By your post I would say that this thread for you probably falls under one of those. If it were me, I would just ignore it.

From now on I will -- I just cant fathom why someone keeps rehashing this thing over and over on a CPAP blog. Just to relight fires between friends?

[Guest]

Based on the lawsuits at Columbine, we can keep this going for YEARS!!

NEWTOWN -- A New Haven attorney is seeking permission from the state to sue on behalf of a 6-year-old girl who he said was traumatized by what she heard over the loudspeakers at Sandy Hook Elementary School the morning of the mass shootings.

The request, the first apparent litigation effort filed in the shootings, comes just two weeks after the death of 20 children and six educators.

Attorney Irving Pinsky sent a notice of claim and request for permission to sue the state to Claims Commissioner J. Paul Vance Jr. on Thursday on behalf of "Jill Doe, a minor child of six years of age and resident of Newtown, Connecticut."

He is asking for $100 million on the child's behalf and brings the claim through the child's parents, cited as "John and Jane Doe."

"I'm not releasing her name or her parents' names," Pinsky said Friday. "She's a little girl and she's suffered enough."

Pinsky said he was contacted by the girl's parents within days of the shootings and agreed to take the case because "we must stand together to protect our children. If we don't, nothing will change."

[Guest]

Based on the lawsuits at Columbine, we can keep this going for YEARS!!

NEWTOWN -- A New Haven attorney is seeking permission from the state to sue on behalf of a 6-year-old girl who he said was traumatized by what she heard over the loudspeakers at Sandy Hook Elementary School the morning of the mass shootings.

The request, the first apparent litigation effort filed in the shootings, comes just two weeks after the death of 20 children and six educators.

Attorney Irving Pinsky sent a notice of claim and request for permission to sue the state to Claims Commissioner J. Paul Vance Jr. on Thursday on behalf of "Jill Doe, a minor child of six years of age and resident of Newtown, Connecticut."

He is asking for $100 million on the child's behalf and brings the claim through the child's parents, cited as "John and Jane Doe."

"I'm not releasing her name or her parents' names," Pinsky said Friday. "She's a little girl and she's suffered enough."

Pinsky said he was contacted by the girl's parents within days of the shootings and agreed to take the case because "we must stand together to protect our children. If we don't, nothing will change."

But does't Connecticut have "sovereign immunity" and can tell that guy to go suck an egg?

Doesn't Irv look like he has OSA?

[ems]

I apologize, Hyperlexis... however, I must admit that I'm going to sue the State of Connecticut also. I feel that I should get at least $150 million for the mental torture I've experienced since this horrific happening. I can't eat or sleep and my bowel movements have changed considerably. I'm now on a cocktail of antidepressants and benzos and I'm going out to purchase a gun in the morning. I'm being watched around the clock. I might kill myself or, at the very least, wind up in the psychiatric hospital in my area. My attorney thinks I should sue for $200 million. I might just do that.

I live in CA, but I still think my claim is valid... don't you?


Edit: I apologized to Hyperlexis because I know how much he wants this thread to disappear... and RIGHTFULLY SO! Had to add my two cents I guess. It seems this confused some people and I'm sorry about that. The above was sarcastic in case anyone is wondering.

[Guest]

Thanks, ems. Hopefully, this will all soon be forgotten.

[Guest]

Well, it looks like someone else's bowel habits have changed:

NEWTOWN -- Days after filing a $100 million lawsuit claiming the state failed to adequately protect the students at Sandy Hook Elementary School -- drawing outrage from area residents and the legal community -- a New Haven lawyer withdrew it Monday.

But that doesn't preclude a future filing, Irving Pinsky said.

"I received new evidence on security at the school, which I need to evaluate," he said, and would decided later "what route to take."

Before withdrawing the filing, Pinsky said he had received thousands of emails and messages condemning him for trying to hold the state accountable for the Sandy Hook shootings that took the lives of 20 first-grade students and six teachers on Dec. 14.

State Attorney General George Jepsen said in a statement Monday that while the families affected by the tragedy deserve a "thoughtful and deliberate examination" of the cause of the shooting, the claims commissioner "is not the appropriate venue."

"Although the investigation is still under way, we are aware of no facts or legal theory under which the state of Connecticut should be held liable for causing the harms inflicted at Sandy Hook Elementary School," Jepsen said. "Nor does the claim letter filed in this case identify a valid basis to support a claim against the state and, by extension, its taxpayers."

People on social media sites were quick to react to Pinsky's filing, with some calling it "despicable" or "absolutely disgusting."

[Cereal Killer]

Maybe it is just a coincidence, but Irving uses the Romney method of dog transportation.