# It’s time to ban trucks.......



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

NYC Muslim terrorist used a truck to run down and kill 8 civilians on a bike path. In a manner similar to the public outcry by anti gun forces when guns are involved in a mass killing, I call for banning trucks because they can become a terrorist weapon. I haven’t yet heard Diblasio or Cuomo make the same demand.

We need common sense truck laws.......

(Ps. Maybe if one of the civilians had been allowed to be armed they could have shot the A**hole before he hit as many folks as he did)


----------



## high pockets (Apr 25, 2011)

It's time to ban trucks.......
Especially those "high capacity" trucks from Home Depot!


----------



## yellowtr (Oct 28, 2016)

RK3369 said:


> NYC Muslim terrorist used a truck to run down and kill 8 civilians on a bike path. In a manner similar to the public outcry by anti gun forces when guns are involved in a mass killing, I call for banning trucks because they can become a terrorist weapon. I haven't yet heard Diblasio or Cuomo make the same demand.
> 
> We need common sense truck laws.......
> 
> (Ps. Maybe if one of the civilians had been allowed to be armed they could have shot the A**hole before he hit as many folks as he did)


In NYC it almost impossible to get a CC permit. I am not allowed to carry in NYC even though I have a CC permit here in central NY. The only ones who have firearms in NYC are the criminals and the cops. Most medium and large cities should be avoided.
It was also just reported that the perp has overstayed his green card visa. What a surprise!


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

I left upstate NY about 10 years ago and have never wanted to go back except to visit family and friends. I know the ridiculous gun laws in NY and in NYC. I still believe that every citizen who is legally allowed to carry should be able to carry anywhere in New York State. Indeed, carry anywhere in the country. Why? Because it has been proven time and time again that the government and law enforcement can not protect us from random events like this. For me, I want to at least be able to try to defend myself and family from a threat like this, and I can’t really do it if I am unarmed by the political climate.

...and I also can’t tolerate the NYS permit system that basically requires a permit holder to register every handgun with the county sheriff. First step to confiscation, IMO.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

yellowtr said:


> In NYC it almost impossible to get a CC permit. I am not allowed to carry in NYC even though I have a CC permit here in central NY. The only ones who have firearms in NYC are the criminals and the cops. Most medium and large cities should be avoided.
> It was also just reported that the perp has overstayed his green card visa. What a surprise!


Eleanor Roosevelt also had a New York permit to carry but it was not valid in New York City.......
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/07/12/eleanor-roosevelt-gun-owner/29953377/


----------



## win231 (Aug 5, 2015)

Just wondering:
What will your answer be when you use that argument & someone asks,
"A guy kills 58 people in Las Vegas with a gun,
A guy kills 50 people in a Florida night club with a gun,
A guy kills 26 children & teachers in an elementary school with a gun,
Two students kill 13 fellow students in Colorado with guns,
A guy kills 32 people at a University in Virginia with a gun,
A guy kills 12 people in a theatre in Colorado,
And this guy kills 8 people with a truck. Which is worse?"

What's the point? We have to come up with better dialogue if we want to preserve our gun rights. The tired, old clichés won't do.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

win231 said:


> Just wondering:
> What will your answer be when you use that argument & someone asks,
> "A guy kills 58 people in Las Vegas with a gun,
> A guy kills 50 people in a Florida night club with a gun,
> ...


The answer is the 2nd Amendment......... However, the "they's" are hell bent on taking our guns (2nd amendment) away..... "They" will accept no answer from us...... *None..........*


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

win231 said:


> Just wondering:
> What will your answer be when you use that argument & someone asks,
> "A guy kills 58 people in Las Vegas with a gun,
> A guy kills 50 people in a Florida night club with a gun,
> ...


I agree with you. The point of my post was to emphasize how ridiculous it is to ban trucks OR GUNS because someone uses them as a means to kill people. The problem is not the means, it's what ends the user makes of the means, and to simply claim that something is inherently evil is just plain ridiculous. You can not protect against these random acts in society regardless of whatever government does, so why not allow people the means to defend themselves rather than making them legally defenseless?


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

I ask if they know what the first recorded murder was?
I ask what happened to Caesar?
How many time per year guns are used to protect peoples lives?
If they know why Japan would not try to invade main land USA?
JPFO has some good pro gun fact books.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

tony pasley said:


> I ask if they know what the first recorded murder was?
> I ask what happened to Caesar?
> How many time per year guns are used to protect peoples lives?
> If they know why Japan would not try to invade main land USA?
> JPFO has some good pro gun fact books.


Wait a minute...
Are you saying that Cain used a gun to kill Abel?
And that Brutus used a gun to murder Caesar?

And please note that the New York City truck-driving killer was armed with at least _two_ guns.
(The fact that his guns weren't real, and couldn't harm anyone, is irrelevant. A gun is a gun.)

We need to strictly control rental trucks.
I demand that one must first be licensed, before being allowed to rent a truck!
Oh... Wait a minute... Um...


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

Steve shame on using that 4 letter word that progressives find so offensive "fact"


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

win231 said:


> Just wondering:
> What will your answer be when you use that argument & someone asks,
> "A guy kills 58 people in Las Vegas with a gun,
> A guy kills 50 people in a Florida night club with a gun,
> ...


New preliminary 2016 data shared Wednesday from the National Safety Council estimates that as many as 40,000 people died in motor vehicles crashes last year, a 6% rise from 2015. If those numbers bear out, it would be a 14% increase in deaths since 2014, the biggest two-year jump in more than five decades.
Over 2000 children die every year under the age of 16


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

pic said:


> ...Over 2000 children die every year under the age of 16.


...No doubt all killed by their annoyed and exasperated parents.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

What makes a gun more dangerous then a bag of rocks?
its not the rifling, or the sights, or even the bullet.
i think it's the gun powder and the Big Bang 
illegal banging ?


----------



## win231 (Aug 5, 2015)

pic said:


> New preliminary 2016 data shared Wednesday from the National Safety Council estimates that as many as 40,000 people died in motor vehicles crashes last year, a 6% rise from 2015. If those numbers bear out, it would be a 14% increase in deaths since 2014, the biggest two-year jump in more than five decades.
> Over 2000 children die every year under the age of 16


That won't do, either. Intentional murder is not a valid comparison to deaths resulting from accidents.
Apples to apples.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

win231 said:


> That won't do, either. Intentional murder is not a valid comparison to deaths resulting from accidents.
> Apples to apples.


Intentional or intent is many times the argument used as a defense. He was temporarily insane, so his intent was a factor of his or her insanity.
I can bring up deaths involving Drunk driving that will blow your mind. Is there intent present when alcohol is involved?
Speed limits are up to 70 mph in many areas. 
If you knowingly drive your car with bald illegal tires and wipe out a family , is there intent that you knowingly or intentionally ignored.

A person who physically intentionally performs an act of mass murder ,,,, is he a normal person or a person who is temporarily or permanently under the influence of (something)?. That (something) is what everyone is trying to figure out.

A person who attends a party and knowingly has the premeditated knowledge that he's gonna (tie one on) and drive home and wipes out a family is a premeditated murderer. That is not an accident!!!


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

I say that we just completely ban the human race and be done with it, once and for all. :smt1099


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

A premeditation to go out and get drunk and drive doesn't necessarily make you a premeditated murderer, but it will depend on the JURY ,,who were the victims, your past record, the amount of money you spend . 

A good lawyer might even get the jury to place you on the sex offenders registry. Lol.


----------



## berettatoter (Sep 1, 2011)

win231 said:


> Just wondering:
> What will your answer be when you use that argument & someone asks,
> "A guy kills 58 people in Las Vegas with a gun,
> A guy kills 50 people in a Florida night club with a gun,
> ...


Didn't the guy in France kill around 108 with that semi?


----------



## win231 (Aug 5, 2015)

berettatoter said:


> Didn't the guy in France kill around 108 with that semi?


Yes, but that one incident in France doesn't change the difference in the death toll from shootings. Two mass shootings = a higher death toll than the incident in France. And that's not even counting today's church shooting in Texas.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

win231 said:


> Just wondering:
> What will your answer be when you use that argument & someone asks,
> "A guy kills 58 people in Las Vegas with a gun,
> A guy kills 50 people in a Florida night club with a gun,
> ...


2,977 were killed on 9/11/01 where box cutters were the weapons of choice.
Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people where a box truck, fertilizer and diesel fuel were the weapons of choice.
Which is worse? So what is the point?

Those who wish to abolish the 2nd Amendment do not give a rat's ass about listening to any logical argument of reason. It's gone way beyond that point. They know that all the laws in the world will not prevent anyone from going on a suicide mission to kill as many people as possible and will use any means at their disposal. But that's not the reason why they want to abolish the civilian possession of firearms. They want to enslave us to their socialist aristocracy of which they will have absolute control over the masses. The 2nd Amendment and Constitutional law are obstacles in that quest. Gun control is merely a means to that end. Only they will have the guns, and we will become their subjects.

Face it, they hate everything that we stand for, as we do them. On just about every issue from guns, to illegal immigration, to climate change etc. That ain't gonna' change. Checkmate. It's a matter of preserving our Constitutional Republic or becoming a true Democracy or "mob rule". I once read where someone wrote that: "only governments should have a monopoly on power". That's how these people think. That is their ultimate goal. Unfortunately the fight of "us" against "them" will never end. But fight we must, if we are to preserve our Constitutional Republic from "mob rule". A formidable task indeed. As a large percentage of people believe we are a Democracy that whatever the majority rules goes. But what they fail to realize as the pendulum of political power swings back and forth that they too will one day find themselves in the minority.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

About today's church massacre:

According to ABC national news, _a private citizen, not in the church, brought out his own rifle and shot the killer_.
The killer escaped, but died from the gunshot hit while escaping in his car.

The ABC news told that story, and briefly interviewed the private citizen.

But then, in the end-of-broadcast recapitulation, the item about the private citizen, the "good guy with a gun," disappeared.
My bet is that it was pulled by a supervisor at the last moment.

But there was a whole lot about the shooter: A photo of his porcine face, his name, his "assault" rifle, and so on.
I think that it's abysmally stupid to publicize the killer, because it encourages "copy cats."
I think it particularly stupid to publicize the killer, and then to delete the good-guy story.


----------



## win231 (Aug 5, 2015)

desertman said:


> 2,977 were killed on 9/11/01 where box cutters were the weapons of choice.
> Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people where a box truck, fertilizer and diesel fuel were the weapons of choice.
> Which is worse? So what is the point?
> 
> ...


None of the 9-11 victims were killed with box cutters.
The victims in the Federal Building were killed by a homemade bomb...true. But bomb making requires a fair amount of skill & knowledge; that's why it isn't used as frequently as firearms. And, (more importantly) the 168 victims in 1995 still don't add up to the number killed in mass shootings - even only adding up the victims in recent months.


----------



## win231 (Aug 5, 2015)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> About today's church massacre:
> 
> According to ABC national news, _a private citizen, not in the church, brought out his own rifle and shot the killer_.
> The killer escaped, but died from the gunshot hit while escaping in his car.
> ...


The news report I heard said the citizen "engaged" the shooter; they don't know (yet) whether the shooter was killed by the citizen or whether he killed himself.

Either way, it's great that he's dead. But I think we need to do better than clichés if we want to preserve our rights.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

What we have to do is figure out how to overcome 'The Big Lie.'

For at least 50 years, we have been assaulted with media campaigns to win arguments by changing the rules of the debate. The mainstream media controls the flow of information and sets the rules for the debate, because the public is too lazy to demand the unadulterated facts. This all had its birth as an over-reaction to the McCarthy era hearings about the spread of communism in America. 

Politicians, in their zeal to combat communism, stepped over the line in their investigations, and there was a backlash from the public that was a direct result of Joseph McCarthy's transgressions. Mostly, the public was just confused about who to believe, but the result was that many began to tolerate the editorial opinions portrayed as 'straight news' by the liberal leaning media. This was during the Adlai Stevenson era of patriotic liberals, who leaned left, but still wanted the best for the country. Mostly, these were decent folks, who simply wanted a counter to the more extreme elements of the right wing. But, it wasn't long before the true believers in socialism starting finding a place for themselves in the media. 

What really gave them a jump-start was Walter Cronkite's declaration that the Viet Nam War was at a 'stalemate,' when, in truth the NVA had just been handed a crushing defeat that made NVA commander-in-chief General Giap believe that the war was lost. Ho Chi Minh seized on the American media's defeatist reporting on the early gains made in the battle, while giving short shrift to the final outcome, which resulted in a 10% reduction in the number of troops the North could field (decimation, by Roman standards). 

Cronkite's broadcast spawned the beginning of the media's attempts to shape US policy by what they chose to emphasize in their broadcasts. This appears to be the beginning of the alliance between the mainstream media and the Democrat(ic?) Party. It took years for it to completely sink into the depths it has presently reached, and it will take years to return the media to honest journalism, if it is even possible. 

As long as the mainstream media is the propaganda arm for a Democrat Party that is almost completely socialistic in it's aims, the fight for preserving American traditions and the Constitution itself will be an uphill battle. Gun rights and free speech are under attack, and the attackers are effective propagandists, with many experts in the art of 'bait and switch' and 'straw men.' When the facts are presented honestly, the debate is easily won by logical arguments. The trick is how to get the facts presented honestly.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

win231 said:


> None of the 9-11 victims were killed with box cutters.
> The victims in the Federal Building were killed by a homemade bomb...true. But bomb making requires a fair amount of skill & knowledge; that's why it isn't used as frequently as firearms. And, (more importantly) the 168 victims in 1995 still don't add up to the number killed in mass shootings - even only adding up the victims in recent months.


The terrorists used box cutters to kill the pilots in order to take control of the aircraft which were used on 9/11/01. Without box cutters or another sharp instrument they probably wouldn't have succeeded. Unless of course they used a length of rope or something else to strangle the pilots. At any rate if they were armed with rope more than likely the passengers would have easily subdued the hijackers by shear numbers alone. As they attempted to do in Shanksville on Flight 93 when they realized what was going down.

I don't understand what difference it makes whether more people were killed using this or that? When the whole point of the matter is that a determined individual(s) will use whatever means necessary to carry out their mission regardless of any laws or bans on specific types of firearms. In the "Happyland Fire" in 1990 which killed 87 people a gallon jug of gasoline was used. That same method could have been used in the Sutherland, TX church shooting and may have exacted the same number of casualties if not more.

I do not think it takes a rocket scientist to construct a bomb, especially by a determined individual(s). There are God only knows how many commonly used materials and substances that are available that can be used for that purpose. Although money may be the deciding factor as to how large that bomb may be. But like I mentioned above, a gallon of gasoline ignited in an enclosed space can too kill a lot of people. Paddock in the worst mass shooting killed 58 and himself. Julio González killed 87 with a gallon jug of gasoline more than any victims of any single mass shooting.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Bisley said:


> What we have to do is figure out how to overcome 'The Big Lie.'
> 
> For at least 50 years, we have been assaulted with media campaigns to win arguments by changing the rules of the debate. The mainstream media controls the flow of information and sets the rules for the debate, because the public is too lazy to demand the unadulterated facts. This all had its birth as an over-reaction to the McCarthy era hearings about the spread of communism in America.
> 
> ...


Great post Bisley! :smt023 :smt023 :smt023


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

win231 said:


> None of the 9-11 victims were killed with box cutters...


On the contrary, *all* of the 9/11 victims were killed by box-cutters.

(See *desertman*'s post #26.)


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

IMO, all the mass shootings and terrorist events which are going on in the world right now are EXACTLY why we the people should be armed. There is NO possible way to prevent these types of events from happening in the future, unless you round up and institutionalize all the crazy people and you kill off all radical Muslims, so the only hope anyone has in these situations against becoming a victim is if they are armed and willing to protect themselves and others.


----------



## win231 (Aug 5, 2015)

RK3369 said:


> IMO, all the mass shootings and terrorist events which are going on in the world right now are EXACTLY why we the people should be armed. There is NO possible way to prevent these types of events from happening in the future, unless you round up and institutionalize all the crazy people and you kill off all radical Muslims, so the only hope anyone has in these situations against becoming a victim is if they are armed and willing to protect themselves and others.


Agreed. I'm all for everything you suggest, even though it will never happen.


----------



## win231 (Aug 5, 2015)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> On the contrary, *all* of the 9/11 victims were killed by box-cutters.
> 
> (See *desertman*'s post #26.)


Quite a stretch...and a desperate one. And yet another example of a tired cliché. Even if the pilot & co-pilot were killed with box cutters, we pretty much know the cause of death of the rest of the victims.
And (a bit off topic), 9-11 couldn't have happened without OUR help. Our lack of airline security, carelessness, utter stupidity & cheapness. Hijacking FOUR planes in one morning? Choosing to not spend the money on a reinforced cockpit door that wouldn't allow anyone in the cockpit like El-Al planes have? Really showed us where our priorities lie. And where our brains were.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

win231 said:


> Quite a stretch...and a desperate one. And yet another example of a tired cliché. Even if the pilot & co-pilot were killed with box cutters, we pretty much know the cause of death of the rest of the victims.
> And (a bit off topic), 9-11 couldn't have happened without OUR help. Our lack of airline security, carelessness, utter stupidity & cheapness. Hijacking FOUR planes in one morning? Choosing to not spend the money on a reinforced cockpit door that wouldn't allow anyone in the cockpit like El-Al planes have? Really showed us where our priorities lie. And where our brains were.


No, not a stretch or a desperate one. Without a method to kill the pilots 9/11/01 would never have taken place. In which case they used box cutters. Before getting to the pilots it is believed that they slit the throats of some of the passengers or flight attendants in order to scare the rest of the passengers into submission. On Flight 93 word of the hijacking and crashing into the Twin Towers was known aboard the plane. The passengers knowing they had nothing to lose, had no choice but to fight back or they would definitely end up like the others. I don't think that the passengers on the planes that hit the Twin Towers had any idea of what was going to happen and probably believed they were being hijacked and were going to be held for ransom at some unnamed location. Therefore it was in their best interests to obey the commands of the hijackers who had now taken over the plane.

However, I do agree with the rest of your post.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

If the Democrat Party were really interested in finding solutions for theses mass shootings, gun control would be way down on their list of priorities. They do not try to solve problems - they are only interested in 'making political hay' from them, usually by finding ways to attach blame to their opponents. A very superficial examination of the gun control that they want is enough to show that none of those laws would have made any difference in any of the cases that they use as an excuse to bring it up again. They use gun control in the same way they have used raising the minimum wage for decades - it distracts from the fact that they never solve any problems, and it is popular with many of the low information constituencies that they prey on to get elected.

I think it has become more and more obvious to most folks that their gun control proposals will simply make things harder for honorable citizens to defend themselves. The problem is that everyone is susceptible to their emotional outrage, whether real or feigned, after one of these tragic events. Their party has made most of its gains, through the years, with emotional pleas that make people feel like something has been done, without ever addressing the real problems.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

Bisley said:


> If the Democrat Party were really interested in finding solutions for theses mass shootings, gun control would be way down on their list of priorities. They do not try to solve problems - they are only interested in 'making political hay' from them, usually by finding ways to attach blame to their opponents. A very superficial examination of the gun control that they want is enough to show that none of those laws would have made any difference in any of the cases that they use as an excuse to bring it up again. They use gun control in the same way they have used raising the minimum wage for decades - it distracts from the fact that they never solve any problems, and it is popular with many of the low information constituencies that they prey on to get elected.
> 
> I think it has become more and more obvious to most folks that their gun control proposals will simply make things harder for honorable citizens to defend themselves. The problem is that everyone is susceptible to their emotional outrage, whether real or feigned, after one of these tragic events. Their party has made most of its gains, through the years, with emotional pleas that make people feel like something has been done, without ever addressing the real problems.


Absolutely spot on. Never let a tragedy go to political waste. That is absolutely how the Democrats work. Sen Blumenthal (Dem, Conn) is now wailing that unless it does something, Congress is complicit in these mass shootings.

In this case, reports I've seen seem to indicate that this was the result of another government screw up. Apparently this guy received a dishonorable Discharge from the Air Force for assaulting his wife and child. He apparently served 12 months under arrest while in the Air Force, then they DD'd him when his sentence was up. Seems like this guy should have been considered a convicted felon or equivalent and been prohibited from purchasing a firearm. So why is it that he supposedly passed the NICS check and the Texas check when he bought the rifle? Because the info was never put into his record, only god knows why, but it sure sounds like a military and government screwup. SO do we ban the government because their systems are not reliable? Not sure how more laws on guns are going to make the government any better at doing what it is mandated to do?

If the government didn't screw this case up, seems like this guy would have never been able to legally purchase the rifle he used. The only laws which should result from this situation are more laws requiring the government to do it's job correctly.


----------



## win231 (Aug 5, 2015)

Looks like the media IS giving the good Samaritans credit for stopping the shooter. Even though the shooter killed himself, the first guy who engaged him caused him to flee when he was struck in his ballistic vest.

The man who put an end to the Texas shooting carnage


----------



## RAEIndustries (Oct 6, 2017)

how did the cops not kill the perp, so sad


----------

