- Thread starter Intrepid4576
- Start date
Re: firearms reality check
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cf0MO55kMsI"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cf0MO55kMsI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
There ya go!
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cf0MO55kMsI"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cf0MO55kMsI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
There ya go!
Re: firearms reality check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cf0MO55kMsI"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cf0MO55kMsI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
There ya go!</div></div>
+1,That's a known fact.....Amen.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cf0MO55kMsI"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cf0MO55kMsI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
There ya go!</div></div>
+1,That's a known fact.....Amen.
Re: firearms reality check
Still, the right to keep and bear arms says nothing about the type of arms. That's the essential nugget that this tragic event has illuminated. I'm not in favor of the strict prohibition of guns or their ancillary bits and pieces. But what about better controls on the end user? I have a state explosives license, a concealed carry permit and a few NFA items. I keep my guns secure. I would like to call myself a responsible owner. If limiting the sale of some items to folks like me who can demonstrate the RESPONSIBILITY to exercise my rights could prevent things like this from happening, I would gladly submit to them.
Like a lot of people all over this country, I have reexamined my priorities after last friday. I think something should change. If you reading this don't agree that we can or should do something different than what we have been doing... well ok, I guess we can't have a discussion. But if you see a way to keep our rights, not overreact, and let democracy do it's magic then you have to listen and be open to the possibility of change. I don't know what that change should be, but I think that we can do better than accepting the status quo.
Maybe I'm insane, but I think there's a way forward for reasonable people to compromise.
Still, the right to keep and bear arms says nothing about the type of arms. That's the essential nugget that this tragic event has illuminated. I'm not in favor of the strict prohibition of guns or their ancillary bits and pieces. But what about better controls on the end user? I have a state explosives license, a concealed carry permit and a few NFA items. I keep my guns secure. I would like to call myself a responsible owner. If limiting the sale of some items to folks like me who can demonstrate the RESPONSIBILITY to exercise my rights could prevent things like this from happening, I would gladly submit to them.
Like a lot of people all over this country, I have reexamined my priorities after last friday. I think something should change. If you reading this don't agree that we can or should do something different than what we have been doing... well ok, I guess we can't have a discussion. But if you see a way to keep our rights, not overreact, and let democracy do it's magic then you have to listen and be open to the possibility of change. I don't know what that change should be, but I think that we can do better than accepting the status quo.
Maybe I'm insane, but I think there's a way forward for reasonable people to compromise.
Re: firearms reality check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Still, the right to keep and bear arms says nothing about the type of arms. That's the essential nugget that this tragic event has illuminated. I'm not in favor of the strict prohibition of guns or their ancillary bits and pieces. But what about better controls on the end user? I have a state explosives license, a concealed carry permit and a few NFA items. I keep my guns secure. I would like to call myself a responsible owner. <span style="color: #CC0000"> If limiting the sale of some items to folks like me </span> who can demonstrate the RESPONSIBILITY to exercise my rights could prevent things like this from happening, I would gladly submit to them.
Like a lot of people all over this country, I have reexamined my priorities after last friday. I think something should change. If you reading this don't agree that we can or should do something different than what we have been doing... well ok, I guess we can't have a discussion. But if you see a way to keep our rights, not overreact, and let democracy do it's magic then you have to listen and be open to the possibility of change. I don't know what that change should be, but I think that we can do better than accepting the status quo.
Maybe I'm insane, but I think there's a way forward for reasonable people to compromise. </div></div>
I can pretty much sum up my reaction to this in two <span style="text-decoration: line-through">words </span>letters . FU. Just who in the fuck is going to decide who is responsible...some of your liberal politition friends. Looks like to me you just went belly up and sold out. Give up some of your money to combat mental illness and its causes, and leave my effen rights alone.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Still, the right to keep and bear arms says nothing about the type of arms. That's the essential nugget that this tragic event has illuminated. I'm not in favor of the strict prohibition of guns or their ancillary bits and pieces. But what about better controls on the end user? I have a state explosives license, a concealed carry permit and a few NFA items. I keep my guns secure. I would like to call myself a responsible owner. <span style="color: #CC0000"> If limiting the sale of some items to folks like me </span> who can demonstrate the RESPONSIBILITY to exercise my rights could prevent things like this from happening, I would gladly submit to them.
Like a lot of people all over this country, I have reexamined my priorities after last friday. I think something should change. If you reading this don't agree that we can or should do something different than what we have been doing... well ok, I guess we can't have a discussion. But if you see a way to keep our rights, not overreact, and let democracy do it's magic then you have to listen and be open to the possibility of change. I don't know what that change should be, but I think that we can do better than accepting the status quo.
Maybe I'm insane, but I think there's a way forward for reasonable people to compromise. </div></div>
I can pretty much sum up my reaction to this in two <span style="text-decoration: line-through">words </span>letters . FU. Just who in the fuck is going to decide who is responsible...some of your liberal politition friends. Looks like to me you just went belly up and sold out. Give up some of your money to combat mental illness and its causes, and leave my effen rights alone.
Re: firearms reality check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Just who in the fuck is going to decide who is responsible...some of your liberal politition friends..... Give up some of your money to combat mental illness and its causes, and leave my effen rights alone. </div></div>
Just who is going to decide who is mentally ill and should not be able to own guns?
At some point, an element of subjectivity will enter into this...unless you are only going to use those who have already committed certain crimes.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Just who in the fuck is going to decide who is responsible...some of your liberal politition friends..... Give up some of your money to combat mental illness and its causes, and leave my effen rights alone. </div></div>
Just who is going to decide who is mentally ill and should not be able to own guns?
At some point, an element of subjectivity will enter into this...unless you are only going to use those who have already committed certain crimes.
Re: firearms reality check
Ive read the numerous posts and coversations going on, on this site and others, about the possibility of an AWB. One thing I would like people to comment on is this.... Whos going to enforce it?
Is the IRS gonna be taxed with making sure you check the box the says "gun owner"? Will it get that far? Are your local police gonna go search every house in the neighboor hood? Are you gonna just load your newly "illegal stuff" up and turn it in? What if we all just said NO? They cant throw 10 million of us in jail... can they?
I guess Im trying to walk this down the line a little. Its still just a bunch of "what ifs", but it might be something to think about.
Ive read the numerous posts and coversations going on, on this site and others, about the possibility of an AWB. One thing I would like people to comment on is this.... Whos going to enforce it?
Is the IRS gonna be taxed with making sure you check the box the says "gun owner"? Will it get that far? Are your local police gonna go search every house in the neighboor hood? Are you gonna just load your newly "illegal stuff" up and turn it in? What if we all just said NO? They cant throw 10 million of us in jail... can they?
I guess Im trying to walk this down the line a little. Its still just a bunch of "what ifs", but it might be something to think about.
Re: firearms reality check
They cant hlod people against their will indefinately in Guantanamo can they?
Oh, wait...
Hitler didnt take them all at once. Most of the sheep will do as their told just like the Aussies.
They cant hlod people against their will indefinately in Guantanamo can they?
Oh, wait...
Hitler didnt take them all at once. Most of the sheep will do as their told just like the Aussies.
Re: firearms reality check
Ok. Maggot can we just tone down the rhetoric for once? I want to hear what people think about the role of weapons in gun violence. I never said that I decide. But somebody somewhere always decides on a line. That's called writing legislation. And liberals and conservatives both do it. Your tone in the above post makes it sound like any belief is wrong 'cause it draws a distinction. Yes, there are far fewer events like this than at almost any other time in our history. Yes, mental health is a crucial factor in this last and other mass shootings. Yes, cars are FAR more likely to injure or kill. But I MAY be willing to accept certain limitations on hardware if I'm convinced they'll make a difference (which I want to do). Convince me, don't just avoid the issue with a hearty FU.
Now, gmz71. Good point. I think the laws on the books are pretty good (on paper). But they have failed to curtail this kind of shooting. I think partly because they're not enforced enough as is. Waiting periods don't solve anything, background checks? HA! What background check! The shithead in portland stole his weapon. What if anything can you do about that? Require gun safes? And as you said who (and how) enforces that?
I'm not convinced that guns are the problem, only that I'll be damned if I dismiss it out of hand for some twisted, prideful, think I know best always, reason.
Here's a question: Would the country be having this discussion if the weapon was an 870 with buck? I'm pretty sure the carnage would have been about the same.
Ok. Maggot can we just tone down the rhetoric for once? I want to hear what people think about the role of weapons in gun violence. I never said that I decide. But somebody somewhere always decides on a line. That's called writing legislation. And liberals and conservatives both do it. Your tone in the above post makes it sound like any belief is wrong 'cause it draws a distinction. Yes, there are far fewer events like this than at almost any other time in our history. Yes, mental health is a crucial factor in this last and other mass shootings. Yes, cars are FAR more likely to injure or kill. But I MAY be willing to accept certain limitations on hardware if I'm convinced they'll make a difference (which I want to do). Convince me, don't just avoid the issue with a hearty FU.
Now, gmz71. Good point. I think the laws on the books are pretty good (on paper). But they have failed to curtail this kind of shooting. I think partly because they're not enforced enough as is. Waiting periods don't solve anything, background checks? HA! What background check! The shithead in portland stole his weapon. What if anything can you do about that? Require gun safes? And as you said who (and how) enforces that?
I'm not convinced that guns are the problem, only that I'll be damned if I dismiss it out of hand for some twisted, prideful, think I know best always, reason.
Here's a question: Would the country be having this discussion if the weapon was an 870 with buck? I'm pretty sure the carnage would have been about the same.
Re: firearms reality check
Oh and gmz. No way in hell I'm submitting to a search, forfeiture, or any other retroactive bullshit.
Oh and gmz. No way in hell I'm submitting to a search, forfeiture, or any other retroactive bullshit.
Re: firearms reality check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They cant hlod people against their will indefinately in Guantanamo can they?
Oh, wait...
Hitler didnt take them all at once. Most of the sheep will do as their told just like the Aussies. </div></div>
Good you bring up Hitler. He gave a speech in '36 I think it was, went something like: "for the first time in our history, our streets will be safe because we have gun registration".
Then they took them from the Jews, because you see, Jews were decided to be inferior, and yes, mentally ill too.
Then they put up posters in towns saying "On such and such day at time such and such, all Jews are to report to this square for relocation to work camps, under penalty of death. Bring warm clothes and items needed for a long stay". They didn't go to a Holiday Inn, you know.
In 1994, Clinton made his AWB speech. His speech writer must not have been a history buff because he ended up paraphrasing Hitler's speech.
YOU can slide down this slippery slope, but don't try and grab my hand when you realize you are falling and need help back up.
I already said what it would take to fix this, in a nutshell we need to change our prison industrial complex into an educational industrial complex. Stay the fuck out of my business, I've owned these "high capacity clips and weapons designed for theatres of war" and been able to control myself. I've also been able to use my army fartsack without malicious intent and it was designed for a theatre of war.
We can have discussions, just not based on fallacies and half-truths.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They cant hlod people against their will indefinately in Guantanamo can they?
Oh, wait...
Hitler didnt take them all at once. Most of the sheep will do as their told just like the Aussies. </div></div>
Good you bring up Hitler. He gave a speech in '36 I think it was, went something like: "for the first time in our history, our streets will be safe because we have gun registration".
Then they took them from the Jews, because you see, Jews were decided to be inferior, and yes, mentally ill too.
Then they put up posters in towns saying "On such and such day at time such and such, all Jews are to report to this square for relocation to work camps, under penalty of death. Bring warm clothes and items needed for a long stay". They didn't go to a Holiday Inn, you know.
In 1994, Clinton made his AWB speech. His speech writer must not have been a history buff because he ended up paraphrasing Hitler's speech.
YOU can slide down this slippery slope, but don't try and grab my hand when you realize you are falling and need help back up.
I already said what it would take to fix this, in a nutshell we need to change our prison industrial complex into an educational industrial complex. Stay the fuck out of my business, I've owned these "high capacity clips and weapons designed for theatres of war" and been able to control myself. I've also been able to use my army fartsack without malicious intent and it was designed for a theatre of war.
We can have discussions, just not based on fallacies and half-truths.
Re: firearms reality check
I mentioned to my wife last night (she's a Wenatchee girl btw) that the best weapon to use in one of these murders, to create the most amount of carnage, would most likely be a Saiga 12 with a 20rd. drum loaded with 3" #4 buck. That is 820 pellets in the air with 20 pulls of the trigger.
But Glocks and AR's are what are used, why?
In the 90's, it was Glocks, AK's, and Tech-9's. Those were the focus of the last ban, truth be told. That didn't stop Columbine, which happened under the holy grail AWB of 1994.
See a pattern? I talked this over with my wife last night and it occurred to me that what you are seeing is that these young men (most of these shooters are 20-30) are emulating a position of authority, as defined by contemporary culture, with absence of a strong concept of reality or any training or parental guidance.
In a nutshell, in the 90's the ones to "look up to" for violence were rappers. And so AK's, Glocks and Tec 9's, a relatively rare junk weapon, turned up a lot.
Today, they are emulating special forces, snipers, military. They are raised and taught gun culture by COD and not DAD and so when you do get a nutjob snap, he is going to grab what he has learned on his own to use.
In Mideast, it is the suicide vest (those people are no different, don't forget that). Pretty sure those are illegal over there.
Ban the AR and it will be something else. You can't close Pandora's box but I reckon they'll want more taxes so they can keep on trying.
His MOTHER took HIM out and gave him the weapons, essentially. So it would seem to me that she, as a mother AND teacher, should know her son best, but still fell into this. She couldn't have bonded another way with her fragile son? Or possibly you can't predict or understand crazy and that is why they call it crazy?
No, security, and I don't mean TSA bullshit, is the answer. These schools need to have the architecture, security and budget we put into prisons. They needn't be prisons, but they do need to be as safe as one.
Right now, nothing is to stop you or I from going to a number of schools in a number of directions and doing the same thing other than free will. And if we had the will to do so, would it really matter so much the tool? Finally, think you can walk into a prison and do that?
I mentioned to my wife last night (she's a Wenatchee girl btw) that the best weapon to use in one of these murders, to create the most amount of carnage, would most likely be a Saiga 12 with a 20rd. drum loaded with 3" #4 buck. That is 820 pellets in the air with 20 pulls of the trigger.
But Glocks and AR's are what are used, why?
In the 90's, it was Glocks, AK's, and Tech-9's. Those were the focus of the last ban, truth be told. That didn't stop Columbine, which happened under the holy grail AWB of 1994.
See a pattern? I talked this over with my wife last night and it occurred to me that what you are seeing is that these young men (most of these shooters are 20-30) are emulating a position of authority, as defined by contemporary culture, with absence of a strong concept of reality or any training or parental guidance.
In a nutshell, in the 90's the ones to "look up to" for violence were rappers. And so AK's, Glocks and Tec 9's, a relatively rare junk weapon, turned up a lot.
Today, they are emulating special forces, snipers, military. They are raised and taught gun culture by COD and not DAD and so when you do get a nutjob snap, he is going to grab what he has learned on his own to use.
In Mideast, it is the suicide vest (those people are no different, don't forget that). Pretty sure those are illegal over there.
Ban the AR and it will be something else. You can't close Pandora's box but I reckon they'll want more taxes so they can keep on trying.
His MOTHER took HIM out and gave him the weapons, essentially. So it would seem to me that she, as a mother AND teacher, should know her son best, but still fell into this. She couldn't have bonded another way with her fragile son? Or possibly you can't predict or understand crazy and that is why they call it crazy?
No, security, and I don't mean TSA bullshit, is the answer. These schools need to have the architecture, security and budget we put into prisons. They needn't be prisons, but they do need to be as safe as one.
Right now, nothing is to stop you or I from going to a number of schools in a number of directions and doing the same thing other than free will. And if we had the will to do so, would it really matter so much the tool? Finally, think you can walk into a prison and do that?
Re: firearms reality check
Well said! One of the problems I see with our American society is (yes there are problems, deal with it) that we look to short term actions to bring long term solutions. It doesn't work that way.
So the question still stands; Would the US be talking about this if it wasn't a black rifle?
BTW: If I hear one more knucklehead pundit say 'clip' when they mean magazine.... F*&K ME!
(apologies to Intrepid, sorry I hijacked)
Well said! One of the problems I see with our American society is (yes there are problems, deal with it) that we look to short term actions to bring long term solutions. It doesn't work that way.
So the question still stands; Would the US be talking about this if it wasn't a black rifle?
BTW: If I hear one more knucklehead pundit say 'clip' when they mean magazine.... F*&K ME!
(apologies to Intrepid, sorry I hijacked)
Re: firearms reality check
Now that's what i;m talking about! A well laid out series of observations and facts, culminating in a supposition. Strykervet, is the next evolution of our society to make public gathering places like prisons? Seams pretty bleak. Israel doesn't even go there and they're always getting attacked.
Cool beans on the wenatchee connetion.
Now that's what i;m talking about! A well laid out series of observations and facts, culminating in a supposition. Strykervet, is the next evolution of our society to make public gathering places like prisons? Seams pretty bleak. Israel doesn't even go there and they're always getting attacked.
Cool beans on the wenatchee connetion.
Re: firearms reality check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have a state explosives license, a concealed carry permit and a few NFA items. I keep my guns secure. I would like to call myself a responsible owner. If limiting the sale of some items to folks like me who can demonstrate the RESPONSIBILITY to exercise my rights could prevent things like this from happening, I would gladly submit to them.</div></div>
The only responsibilty I gather from your post is that which you display from the lawful exercise of these permits/license, how exactly did you go about demonstrating the requisite responsibilty neccessary to obtain these permits in the first place?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have a state explosives license, a concealed carry permit and a few NFA items. I keep my guns secure. I would like to call myself a responsible owner. If limiting the sale of some items to folks like me who can demonstrate the RESPONSIBILITY to exercise my rights could prevent things like this from happening, I would gladly submit to them.</div></div>
The only responsibilty I gather from your post is that which you display from the lawful exercise of these permits/license, how exactly did you go about demonstrating the requisite responsibilty neccessary to obtain these permits in the first place?
Re: firearms reality check
^^^As Hamlet would say, "there's the rub"! All well and good if you have said permits already to say that should be the standard. VERY slippery slope there. Mental defects caused this, not availability of guns. I am a weapon. You are a weapon. Regardless of the tool used. A gun doesn't just go off, just as the stove doesn't just make me dinner. This kid couldn't tell right from wrong due to whatever defect in his mind. Instead of ensuring he couldn't harm society, for whatever reason he was allowed to continue in our midst. That is the root issue that must be addressed and faced. These shooters, absent a gun, could and would easily resort to much more devastating alternatives. And let's be honest, armed resistance in any of these shootings has a high likelihood of dramatically different results.
^^^As Hamlet would say, "there's the rub"! All well and good if you have said permits already to say that should be the standard. VERY slippery slope there. Mental defects caused this, not availability of guns. I am a weapon. You are a weapon. Regardless of the tool used. A gun doesn't just go off, just as the stove doesn't just make me dinner. This kid couldn't tell right from wrong due to whatever defect in his mind. Instead of ensuring he couldn't harm society, for whatever reason he was allowed to continue in our midst. That is the root issue that must be addressed and faced. These shooters, absent a gun, could and would easily resort to much more devastating alternatives. And let's be honest, armed resistance in any of these shootings has a high likelihood of dramatically different results.
Re: firearms reality check
Find teachers that are comfortable with ccw, give them extra training, and let them conceal carry at school. If any of teachers at Sandy Hook or patrons at the Aurora theater or the Portland mall would have been able to carry concealed, we would have read much different stories.
Find teachers that are comfortable with ccw, give them extra training, and let them conceal carry at school. If any of teachers at Sandy Hook or patrons at the Aurora theater or the Portland mall would have been able to carry concealed, we would have read much different stories.
Re: firearms reality check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Still, the right to keep and bear arms says nothing about the type of arms. That's the essential nugget that this tragic event has illuminated. I'm not in favor of the strict prohibition of guns or their ancillary bits and pieces. But what about better controls on the end user? I have a state explosives license, a concealed carry permit and a few NFA items. I keep my guns secure. I would like to call myself a responsible owner. If limiting the sale of some items to folks like me who can demonstrate the RESPONSIBILITY to exercise my rights could prevent things like this from happening, I would gladly submit to them.
Maybe I'm insane, but I think there's a way forward for reasonable people to compromise. </div></div>
Pinsandpitons - you sound like a reasonable and responsible person. However, you may have not completely thought through your new position on gun control. The Obamacare law provides the feds complete access to your personal health record and all financial records - including transactions. With this information you can be profiled any way they see fit. Examples:
Were you ever prescribed Wellbutrin to stop smoking? It's an anti-depressant... denied!
Were you ever prescribed pain killers for injury or re-occuring pain? Possible addiction/abuse... denied!
Were you ever cited for DUI? Possible abuse - even though there was no conviction - denied!
We you ever cited for speeding? Reckless behavior... denied!
Credit card history indicates numerous firearm and/or ammunition purchases... denied!
I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.
Who are you going to trust to correctly evaluate and judge your life history?
Unless you are a saint, or have lived totally of the grid for more than 30 years, everything is open to their interpretation.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Still, the right to keep and bear arms says nothing about the type of arms. That's the essential nugget that this tragic event has illuminated. I'm not in favor of the strict prohibition of guns or their ancillary bits and pieces. But what about better controls on the end user? I have a state explosives license, a concealed carry permit and a few NFA items. I keep my guns secure. I would like to call myself a responsible owner. If limiting the sale of some items to folks like me who can demonstrate the RESPONSIBILITY to exercise my rights could prevent things like this from happening, I would gladly submit to them.
Maybe I'm insane, but I think there's a way forward for reasonable people to compromise. </div></div>
Pinsandpitons - you sound like a reasonable and responsible person. However, you may have not completely thought through your new position on gun control. The Obamacare law provides the feds complete access to your personal health record and all financial records - including transactions. With this information you can be profiled any way they see fit. Examples:
Were you ever prescribed Wellbutrin to stop smoking? It's an anti-depressant... denied!
Were you ever prescribed pain killers for injury or re-occuring pain? Possible addiction/abuse... denied!
Were you ever cited for DUI? Possible abuse - even though there was no conviction - denied!
We you ever cited for speeding? Reckless behavior... denied!
Credit card history indicates numerous firearm and/or ammunition purchases... denied!
I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.
Who are you going to trust to correctly evaluate and judge your life history?
Unless you are a saint, or have lived totally of the grid for more than 30 years, everything is open to their interpretation.
Re: firearms reality check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wildcats</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cf0MO55kMsI"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cf0MO55kMsI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
There ya go!</div></div>
+1,That's a known fact.....Amen.
</div></div>
What other American Rights would you be able to "compromise"? There is little doubt that "Freedom of expression" has caused a lot of trouble for lots of people over the years, maybe you'd be willing to start there? Uphold and defend, doesn't mean, " Well a few changes here and there would be okay, we can trust our govt. to do the right thing...". Real Americans do not piss away their rights, maybe you should think about moving to England.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wildcats</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cf0MO55kMsI"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cf0MO55kMsI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
There ya go!</div></div>
+1,That's a known fact.....Amen.
</div></div>
What other American Rights would you be able to "compromise"? There is little doubt that "Freedom of expression" has caused a lot of trouble for lots of people over the years, maybe you'd be willing to start there? Uphold and defend, doesn't mean, " Well a few changes here and there would be okay, we can trust our govt. to do the right thing...". Real Americans do not piss away their rights, maybe you should think about moving to England.
Re: firearms reality check
It's occurred to me that the two main bodies responsible for these mass killings are those enacting gun free zones (government, local or otherwise) and the media.
By creating a "Gun Free Zone" you are creating a pool of unarmed victims. By celebrating the shooter, calling him by his name on every media outlet for days/weeks, you are giving him the attention he craves.
Copycat killers will repeat this crime. Now imagine if the news sounded like this: "A lunatic killed 20 people at a school. Police killed him as soon as they responded." Or, better yet, "An idiot tried to shoot some children in a middle school and was shot dead by two of the faculty."
Most mass killers commit suicide, or suicide by cop. They want to go out in a blaze of 'glory' and be famous. Why do we enable this?
My problem with registration, or a restriction on type of firearm or who gets to own them, is who decides? I forget who said the famous line about 'the shoulder thing that goes up' but most of the people that want to ban firearms are not shooters and so have little knowledge of firearms. Witness the 1994 AWB, that banned the AR15 in many configurations yet exempted the Mini-14. As they are both box-magazine fed semi-auto .223 caliber weapons, the AWB was clearly saving us from black plastic stocks.
I think we've compromised enough. Gun free zones don't work, gun buybacks don't work, and the AWB was a failure. As first noticeably pointed out in "More Guns, Less Crime" (John R. Lott) an increase in guns in the hands of law abiding citizens tends to reduce crime. We need <span style="font-weight: bold">more</span> guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, not less.
Let's not forget the intent of the Second Amendment. Fresh from combat with the British, the Framers of the Constitution specifically meant to enable future Americans to throw off a tyrannical government. The Amendment was written to guarantee civilians the right to own firearms sufficient to defend themselves against a military force. It's not about hunting, it's about freedom.
To see, right here in the USA, where further registration gets gun owners, look at California. The state several years ago told all SKS and AK type rifle owners that they would have to register these weapons with the state, "Just so we can find out how many there are."
This was followed in a couple of years by, "Alright, we know you have them. Turn them in, or face the consequences." So, many gun owners turned them in. At least, the law-abiding ones did. Criminals didn't, because criminals do not obey laws.
A disarmed society would be gladiatorial. The strong will take from the weak, by force, and with impunity. An excellent example is Britain, where gun owners are a minority, hemmed in with restrictions. And where violent home invasions are common. How helpless would a man feel, watching his family members hurt, raped, killed.... and being absolutely powerless to prevent it.
No, my friends, we are past compromise.
1911fan
It's occurred to me that the two main bodies responsible for these mass killings are those enacting gun free zones (government, local or otherwise) and the media.
By creating a "Gun Free Zone" you are creating a pool of unarmed victims. By celebrating the shooter, calling him by his name on every media outlet for days/weeks, you are giving him the attention he craves.
Copycat killers will repeat this crime. Now imagine if the news sounded like this: "A lunatic killed 20 people at a school. Police killed him as soon as they responded." Or, better yet, "An idiot tried to shoot some children in a middle school and was shot dead by two of the faculty."
Most mass killers commit suicide, or suicide by cop. They want to go out in a blaze of 'glory' and be famous. Why do we enable this?
My problem with registration, or a restriction on type of firearm or who gets to own them, is who decides? I forget who said the famous line about 'the shoulder thing that goes up' but most of the people that want to ban firearms are not shooters and so have little knowledge of firearms. Witness the 1994 AWB, that banned the AR15 in many configurations yet exempted the Mini-14. As they are both box-magazine fed semi-auto .223 caliber weapons, the AWB was clearly saving us from black plastic stocks.
I think we've compromised enough. Gun free zones don't work, gun buybacks don't work, and the AWB was a failure. As first noticeably pointed out in "More Guns, Less Crime" (John R. Lott) an increase in guns in the hands of law abiding citizens tends to reduce crime. We need <span style="font-weight: bold">more</span> guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, not less.
Let's not forget the intent of the Second Amendment. Fresh from combat with the British, the Framers of the Constitution specifically meant to enable future Americans to throw off a tyrannical government. The Amendment was written to guarantee civilians the right to own firearms sufficient to defend themselves against a military force. It's not about hunting, it's about freedom.
To see, right here in the USA, where further registration gets gun owners, look at California. The state several years ago told all SKS and AK type rifle owners that they would have to register these weapons with the state, "Just so we can find out how many there are."
This was followed in a couple of years by, "Alright, we know you have them. Turn them in, or face the consequences." So, many gun owners turned them in. At least, the law-abiding ones did. Criminals didn't, because criminals do not obey laws.
A disarmed society would be gladiatorial. The strong will take from the weak, by force, and with impunity. An excellent example is Britain, where gun owners are a minority, hemmed in with restrictions. And where violent home invasions are common. How helpless would a man feel, watching his family members hurt, raped, killed.... and being absolutely powerless to prevent it.
No, my friends, we are past compromise.
1911fan
Re: firearms reality check
I've given this a great deal of thoughts over the years I've been keen to the RKBA.
The simple truth that I keep coming back to is there is absolutely, positively no way to stop twisted people from doing the twisted things they are bent on doing.
Think about it. It doesn't matter what controls you put in place, there will be corruption, and a black market that will circumvent ANY control you put in place.
Would a ban on boxmag-fed semi-auto rifles, and/or magazines with capacity greater than 5 or 10 rounds actually stop a twisted individual? What about the 100's of millions in existence? Wouldn't the sick fuck just find/steal one of them? Confiscate them all? Sure, you'd get a bunch of them, but wouldn't a huge black market begin to flourish? The Feds have absolutely failed at stopping a wild black market thats cropped up in response to the war on drugs. How would a prohibition/confiscation of guns be any different?
In the end, my thoughts on this are very, very simple:
1. The Federalist papers clearly indicate the 2nd Amendment was written to give the people the ability to protect themselves from the government.
2. You can't regulate/control very few things effectively. You will always create corruption and a black market.
3. <span style="font-weight: bold">The <span style="font-style: italic">only</span> way to thwart and combat those that are bent on hurting others, is to provide the people with a means of defending themselves from the twisted.</span>
I've given this a great deal of thoughts over the years I've been keen to the RKBA.
The simple truth that I keep coming back to is there is absolutely, positively no way to stop twisted people from doing the twisted things they are bent on doing.
Think about it. It doesn't matter what controls you put in place, there will be corruption, and a black market that will circumvent ANY control you put in place.
Would a ban on boxmag-fed semi-auto rifles, and/or magazines with capacity greater than 5 or 10 rounds actually stop a twisted individual? What about the 100's of millions in existence? Wouldn't the sick fuck just find/steal one of them? Confiscate them all? Sure, you'd get a bunch of them, but wouldn't a huge black market begin to flourish? The Feds have absolutely failed at stopping a wild black market thats cropped up in response to the war on drugs. How would a prohibition/confiscation of guns be any different?
In the end, my thoughts on this are very, very simple:
1. The Federalist papers clearly indicate the 2nd Amendment was written to give the people the ability to protect themselves from the government.
2. You can't regulate/control very few things effectively. You will always create corruption and a black market.
3. <span style="font-weight: bold">The <span style="font-style: italic">only</span> way to thwart and combat those that are bent on hurting others, is to provide the people with a means of defending themselves from the twisted.</span>
Re: firearms reality check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R6Hybridd</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If any of teachers at Sandy Hook or patrons at the Aurora theater or the Portland mall would have been able to carry concealed, we would have read much different stories. </div></div> There was a concealed pistol in portland.
http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R6Hybridd</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If any of teachers at Sandy Hook or patrons at the Aurora theater or the Portland mall would have been able to carry concealed, we would have read much different stories. </div></div> There was a concealed pistol in portland.
http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html
Re: firearms reality check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Xshot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Pinsandpitons - ..... you may have not completely thought through your new position on gun control.
------------
Who are you going to trust to correctly evaluate and judge your life history?
</div></div>
Your right, I suppose I was thinking out loud more than announcing a fully formed world view. But the point I'm trying to make is that everybody looks stuck in the same old tired camps. The gun grabbers still don't know what they are trying to grab and from whom, and the gun toting hillbillies are still screaming 'from my cold dead hands'. No wonder nothing ever changes, behavior or otherwise.
All I'm saying is that I jumped through some hoops to obtain the weapons I have and I'm assuming you did too. What's wrong with reevaluating and making sure those hoops work better? We don't live in the 18th century anymore. Or do you think anyone and everyone should be armed at all times and in all places?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Xshot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Pinsandpitons - ..... you may have not completely thought through your new position on gun control.
------------
Who are you going to trust to correctly evaluate and judge your life history?
</div></div>
Your right, I suppose I was thinking out loud more than announcing a fully formed world view. But the point I'm trying to make is that everybody looks stuck in the same old tired camps. The gun grabbers still don't know what they are trying to grab and from whom, and the gun toting hillbillies are still screaming 'from my cold dead hands'. No wonder nothing ever changes, behavior or otherwise.
All I'm saying is that I jumped through some hoops to obtain the weapons I have and I'm assuming you did too. What's wrong with reevaluating and making sure those hoops work better? We don't live in the 18th century anymore. Or do you think anyone and everyone should be armed at all times and in all places?
Re: firearms reality check
Mike, I totally agree on the 'glory' point.
I recognize the futility of putting the genie back in the bottle. What I'm hearing is that we all should just remember the victims, forget the perp, and move on down the road like nothing happened.
Awesome.
Mike, I totally agree on the 'glory' point.
I recognize the futility of putting the genie back in the bottle. What I'm hearing is that we all should just remember the victims, forget the perp, and move on down the road like nothing happened.
Awesome.
Re: firearms reality check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Xshot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Pinsandpitons - ..... you may have not completely thought through your new position on gun control.
------------
Who are you going to trust to correctly evaluate and judge your life history?
</div></div>
Or do you think anyone and everyone should be armed at all times and in all places? </div></div>
Hmmm... that's a left field statement.
That said, everyone armed at all times is not practical or realistic. I will say that gun free zones need to be discussed. At best it's a feel good thing, but in reality it's created a safe haven for psychopaths to prey upon people with total impunity. I'm sure you are aware all these recent mass murders took place in these "safe" areas.
If lawful citizen were allowed to CC unrestricted, I'm sure many of these nut cases would think much harder about making their murderous statement. Simply put, they lose their advantage. Instead of signs posting "Gun Free Zone" what if the opposite, Conceal Carry Encouraged, were true.
Situational awareness... think about it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Xshot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Pinsandpitons - ..... you may have not completely thought through your new position on gun control.
------------
Who are you going to trust to correctly evaluate and judge your life history?
</div></div>
Or do you think anyone and everyone should be armed at all times and in all places? </div></div>
Hmmm... that's a left field statement.
That said, everyone armed at all times is not practical or realistic. I will say that gun free zones need to be discussed. At best it's a feel good thing, but in reality it's created a safe haven for psychopaths to prey upon people with total impunity. I'm sure you are aware all these recent mass murders took place in these "safe" areas.
If lawful citizen were allowed to CC unrestricted, I'm sure many of these nut cases would think much harder about making their murderous statement. Simply put, they lose their advantage. Instead of signs posting "Gun Free Zone" what if the opposite, Conceal Carry Encouraged, were true.
Situational awareness... think about it.
Re: firearms reality check
good points xshot. I've never been a big fan of gun free zones for the same reasons you cite. And the anyone all the time was in reference to the hoops we all jump through as opposed to zero checks on anybody anywhere. How do you define 'lawful citizen'? How do you know? Do they need to be just lawful, or should they have some rudimentary knowledge and or training? How can you justify taking away the implied 'right' to carry from the.... 'un'-lawful? A privilege is earned where a 'right' is unalienable.
good points xshot. I've never been a big fan of gun free zones for the same reasons you cite. And the anyone all the time was in reference to the hoops we all jump through as opposed to zero checks on anybody anywhere. How do you define 'lawful citizen'? How do you know? Do they need to be just lawful, or should they have some rudimentary knowledge and or training? How can you justify taking away the implied 'right' to carry from the.... 'un'-lawful? A privilege is earned where a 'right' is unalienable.
Re: firearms reality check
Pins,
Your post suggests you would like dialogue directed toward describing a path to prevent future massacres. I don't think this is possible through any form of legislation. We have a humanity problem combined with a large and dense population. I frankly think the question is, "why don't things like this happen more often?"
Gov't can possibly eliminate one type of weapon at a time, it would take Draconian measures that would be met with resistance. Say they eliminate all AR's and like rifles, then they focus on hi-cap polymers. In time we have only politically correct "hunting rifles" and double shotguns. Then a legitimate shooter will hit 2 dozen in a crowd from a half mile. Now what, outlaw scopes or accurate ammo? The point is the weapon doesn't matter a bit; whether it's a revolver, a bucket of gasoline, or a concrete truck. There are always going to be psychopaths that attempt to kill in multiples. There is no evidence that firearms of any type make mass killings more likely. On the contrary, 100% of mass murder victims DON'T have an AR-15.
I don't offer a solution either. For me and mine it comes down to personal accountability and luck. I do what I can when I can, but I can't be at my kids' two schools all day waiting for a bad guy. I would, however, support a mill levy in this town that would pay for security at our schools. Fight fire with fire.
Pins,
Your post suggests you would like dialogue directed toward describing a path to prevent future massacres. I don't think this is possible through any form of legislation. We have a humanity problem combined with a large and dense population. I frankly think the question is, "why don't things like this happen more often?"
Gov't can possibly eliminate one type of weapon at a time, it would take Draconian measures that would be met with resistance. Say they eliminate all AR's and like rifles, then they focus on hi-cap polymers. In time we have only politically correct "hunting rifles" and double shotguns. Then a legitimate shooter will hit 2 dozen in a crowd from a half mile. Now what, outlaw scopes or accurate ammo? The point is the weapon doesn't matter a bit; whether it's a revolver, a bucket of gasoline, or a concrete truck. There are always going to be psychopaths that attempt to kill in multiples. There is no evidence that firearms of any type make mass killings more likely. On the contrary, 100% of mass murder victims DON'T have an AR-15.
I don't offer a solution either. For me and mine it comes down to personal accountability and luck. I do what I can when I can, but I can't be at my kids' two schools all day waiting for a bad guy. I would, however, support a mill levy in this town that would pay for security at our schools. Fight fire with fire.
Re: firearms reality check
I believe that you should have some type of formal training to conceal. I also think that if you have no history of violent offenses then you should not be restricted to practice this. gun free school zones must go away. If there is anything to blame look at violent games and violent movies. they should be restricted to children and set a minimum age of 18 like pornography. I know it is not an ultimate soluteion.
teachers take cpr and other training to help suit the needs of children in the school so why not let them qualify 4+ times a year on carring if they so choose. the fact is if you allow them to carry, I believe, you would see a decline in this type of incident from transpiring. I also pause to think about the kids and what happened! My wife works with kindies and she was a wreck all day monday. not knowing what to expect and all. She said when someone unexpected came in the room her heart raced. This trajedy impacted the nation. we need to come together on a better solution one that does not infringe on the rights of others. btw the news clip is awesome, Preaching the choir!
I believe that you should have some type of formal training to conceal. I also think that if you have no history of violent offenses then you should not be restricted to practice this. gun free school zones must go away. If there is anything to blame look at violent games and violent movies. they should be restricted to children and set a minimum age of 18 like pornography. I know it is not an ultimate soluteion.
teachers take cpr and other training to help suit the needs of children in the school so why not let them qualify 4+ times a year on carring if they so choose. the fact is if you allow them to carry, I believe, you would see a decline in this type of incident from transpiring. I also pause to think about the kids and what happened! My wife works with kindies and she was a wreck all day monday. not knowing what to expect and all. She said when someone unexpected came in the room her heart raced. This trajedy impacted the nation. we need to come together on a better solution one that does not infringe on the rights of others. btw the news clip is awesome, Preaching the choir!
Re: firearms reality check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R6Hybridd</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If any of teachers at Sandy Hook or patrons at the Aurora theater or the Portland mall would have been able to carry concealed, we would have read much different stories. </div></div> There was a concealed pistol in portland.
http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html </div></div>
Forgot about that but it just goes to prove my point. Had he not been there, how many more innocent would have died?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R6Hybridd</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If any of teachers at Sandy Hook or patrons at the Aurora theater or the Portland mall would have been able to carry concealed, we would have read much different stories. </div></div> There was a concealed pistol in portland.
http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html </div></div>
Forgot about that but it just goes to prove my point. Had he not been there, how many more innocent would have died?
Re: firearms reality check
Alright!!!
I'm going to be the one to say it. It's not just Obama, it's the system! Why does the government want to keep "assault weapons" out of civilian hands? It's obvious....it's to limit the civilians ability to effectively fight tyranny in the government. They cringe at the thought of a social uprising with civvies using the same of better weapon systems than the government has.
My Sherrif confirmed this! He told me that he wouldn't sign a class 3 application because he didn't want the public to have better weapons than his department has. That mindset goes all the way to the Very top.
The system doesn't care about your deer rifle that holds 3 rounds. In 1776 we fought tyranny with state of the art weapons for the time. It's our RIGHT to equip ourselves with the equivalent weapons today.
If this crosses the political boundary here, I apologize. The truth must be said though.
Alright!!!
I'm going to be the one to say it. It's not just Obama, it's the system! Why does the government want to keep "assault weapons" out of civilian hands? It's obvious....it's to limit the civilians ability to effectively fight tyranny in the government. They cringe at the thought of a social uprising with civvies using the same of better weapon systems than the government has.
My Sherrif confirmed this! He told me that he wouldn't sign a class 3 application because he didn't want the public to have better weapons than his department has. That mindset goes all the way to the Very top.
The system doesn't care about your deer rifle that holds 3 rounds. In 1776 we fought tyranny with state of the art weapons for the time. It's our RIGHT to equip ourselves with the equivalent weapons today.
If this crosses the political boundary here, I apologize. The truth must be said though.
Re: firearms reality check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Xshot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Pinsandpitons - ..... you may have not completely thought through your new position on gun control.
------------
Who are you going to trust to correctly evaluate and judge your life history?
</div></div>
Your right, I suppose I was thinking out loud more than announcing a fully formed world view. But the point I'm trying to make is that everybody looks stuck in the same old tired camps. The gun grabbers still don't know what they are trying to grab and from whom, and the gun toting hillbillies are still screaming 'from my cold dead hands'. No wonder nothing ever changes, behavior or otherwise.
All I'm saying is that I jumped through some hoops to obtain the weapons I have and I'm assuming you did too. What's wrong with reevaluating and making sure those hoops work better? We don't live in the 18th century anymore. Or do you think anyone and everyone should be armed at all times and in all places?</div></div>
i was thinking you were being well thought out, and i even if i disagreed with you it was thoughtful. UP until people turned into gun toting hillbillies. At this point i agree with the first responder to your post. My only response now can be FU. Congratz, you went from reasoned to biggot in one phrase.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Xshot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Pinsandpitons - ..... you may have not completely thought through your new position on gun control.
------------
Who are you going to trust to correctly evaluate and judge your life history?
</div></div>
Your right, I suppose I was thinking out loud more than announcing a fully formed world view. But the point I'm trying to make is that everybody looks stuck in the same old tired camps. The gun grabbers still don't know what they are trying to grab and from whom, and the gun toting hillbillies are still screaming 'from my cold dead hands'. No wonder nothing ever changes, behavior or otherwise.
All I'm saying is that I jumped through some hoops to obtain the weapons I have and I'm assuming you did too. What's wrong with reevaluating and making sure those hoops work better? We don't live in the 18th century anymore. Or do you think anyone and everyone should be armed at all times and in all places?</div></div>
i was thinking you were being well thought out, and i even if i disagreed with you it was thoughtful. UP until people turned into gun toting hillbillies. At this point i agree with the first responder to your post. My only response now can be FU. Congratz, you went from reasoned to biggot in one phrase.
Re: firearms reality check
I was trying to use hyperbole to illustrate the two camps as seen from the other side. I would put myself in the gun totting hillbilliy camp. No offense intended, sorry.
I was trying to use hyperbole to illustrate the two camps as seen from the other side. I would put myself in the gun totting hillbilliy camp. No offense intended, sorry.
Re: firearms reality check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was trying to use hyperbole to illustrate the two camps as seen from the other side. I would put myself in the gun totting hillbilliy camp. No offense intended, sorry.</div></div>
ah, understood. i retract my FU until further notice. I disagree with most of what you said but at least it was reasoned and thoughtful. But the hillbilly thing touched a nerve. Considering the first post it didnt come off as hyperbole to me. once again, my apologies.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was trying to use hyperbole to illustrate the two camps as seen from the other side. I would put myself in the gun totting hillbilliy camp. No offense intended, sorry.</div></div>
ah, understood. i retract my FU until further notice. I disagree with most of what you said but at least it was reasoned and thoughtful. But the hillbilly thing touched a nerve. Considering the first post it didnt come off as hyperbole to me. once again, my apologies.
Re: firearms reality check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body">good points xshot. I've never been a big fan of gun free zones for the same reasons you cite. And the anyone all the time was in reference to the hoops we all jump through as opposed to zero checks on anybody anywhere. How do you define 'lawful citizen'? How do you know? Do they need to be just lawful, or should they have some rudimentary knowledge and or training? How can you justify taking away the implied 'right' to carry from the.... 'un'-lawful? A privilege is earned where a 'right' is unalienable. </div></div>
All states, except Illinois, have some form of CCW law. FWIW - this is where legislation belongs - NOT the Feds! From my research CCW has not presented a problem in any states. In my home state, Wisconsin, concealed carry is only about 1 year old. The left fought the passage of the law tooth & nail. They claimed there would be street shoot-outs and general mayhem. The reality is none of their hysterical claims came to fruition. Moreover, applications for CCW permits have smashed a projections and continue at a record pace.
We already have an answer to your question. Let the states handle it - not the feds. We already know the facts. States and cities with the most restrictive gun and CCW laws have the highest violent crime and murder rates. In their quest to create a gun free shangrila, liberal feel good crap, they have given the advantage to criminals and nut jobs. If gun free zones where eliminated and CCW became the norm, then criminals and wacko's would be very nervous.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body">good points xshot. I've never been a big fan of gun free zones for the same reasons you cite. And the anyone all the time was in reference to the hoops we all jump through as opposed to zero checks on anybody anywhere. How do you define 'lawful citizen'? How do you know? Do they need to be just lawful, or should they have some rudimentary knowledge and or training? How can you justify taking away the implied 'right' to carry from the.... 'un'-lawful? A privilege is earned where a 'right' is unalienable. </div></div>
All states, except Illinois, have some form of CCW law. FWIW - this is where legislation belongs - NOT the Feds! From my research CCW has not presented a problem in any states. In my home state, Wisconsin, concealed carry is only about 1 year old. The left fought the passage of the law tooth & nail. They claimed there would be street shoot-outs and general mayhem. The reality is none of their hysterical claims came to fruition. Moreover, applications for CCW permits have smashed a projections and continue at a record pace.
We already have an answer to your question. Let the states handle it - not the feds. We already know the facts. States and cities with the most restrictive gun and CCW laws have the highest violent crime and murder rates. In their quest to create a gun free shangrila, liberal feel good crap, they have given the advantage to criminals and nut jobs. If gun free zones where eliminated and CCW became the norm, then criminals and wacko's would be very nervous.
Re: firearms reality check
"Gun free zones", Are you kidding? The entire USA is a "heroin free zone", yet there does seem to be a lot of heroin for sale. Some (fools) believe that heroin dealers will continue to sell heroin to kids, but will turn in their guns!Huge number of guns are confiscated by LE every years from felons, drug dealers, etc., these low lifes could (and should get) a Extra Five Years in prison, yet our D.A.s and U.S.Atty's don't seem to have the time to take care of business. It is much easier to "deal" the gun charge away. I guess sometimes it may be necessary, but 100,000s of times a year? I find that hard to believe. We don't need new gun laws, we need new D.A.'s-criminals with guns would really add up to prison time, in real life, not just on the billboards!
"Gun free zones", Are you kidding? The entire USA is a "heroin free zone", yet there does seem to be a lot of heroin for sale. Some (fools) believe that heroin dealers will continue to sell heroin to kids, but will turn in their guns!Huge number of guns are confiscated by LE every years from felons, drug dealers, etc., these low lifes could (and should get) a Extra Five Years in prison, yet our D.A.s and U.S.Atty's don't seem to have the time to take care of business. It is much easier to "deal" the gun charge away. I guess sometimes it may be necessary, but 100,000s of times a year? I find that hard to believe. We don't need new gun laws, we need new D.A.'s-criminals with guns would really add up to prison time, in real life, not just on the billboards!
Re: firearms reality check
Do we need better controls on free speech? Do we need better controls on who we allow to go to what church?
I suppose if we ban AR15s, we can ban Islam as well?
Do we need better controls on free speech? Do we need better controls on who we allow to go to what church?
I suppose if we ban AR15s, we can ban Islam as well?
Re: firearms reality check
Mexico has major gun control, ask them how well it works when applied to a country with firearms tied to its history. Hell massacres there hardly make the news anymore.
People in America including youths were killing each other in far higher numbers prior to television and video games, or box magazines and cartridge weapons for that matter. I did find it curious that when violence in games and movies was brought up on the news this morning the caster immediately said, "but we can't ban them they're protected by the first ammendment" no such statement was made about firearms and 2A.
Mexico has major gun control, ask them how well it works when applied to a country with firearms tied to its history. Hell massacres there hardly make the news anymore.
People in America including youths were killing each other in far higher numbers prior to television and video games, or box magazines and cartridge weapons for that matter. I did find it curious that when violence in games and movies was brought up on the news this morning the caster immediately said, "but we can't ban them they're protected by the first ammendment" no such statement was made about firearms and 2A.
Re: firearms reality check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If limiting the sale of some items to folks like me who can demonstrate the RESPONSIBILITY </div></div>
In a perfect world I would agree (hell in a perfect world we wouldn't be having this discussion). However, in the world we live in this idea won't work.
Take CCW here in CA. In the county I live in, CCW is pretty much non-existent. Rumor is you need to donate about $25k to get in to the inner circle and get a permit. There is an official process and everything, but you can and will be denied for no reason and you can't argue the point. So good idea to make sure CCW holders are competent and responsible but unless the "competent" part is somehow standardized and quantifiable, it's worthless.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If limiting the sale of some items to folks like me who can demonstrate the RESPONSIBILITY </div></div>
In a perfect world I would agree (hell in a perfect world we wouldn't be having this discussion). However, in the world we live in this idea won't work.
Take CCW here in CA. In the county I live in, CCW is pretty much non-existent. Rumor is you need to donate about $25k to get in to the inner circle and get a permit. There is an official process and everything, but you can and will be denied for no reason and you can't argue the point. So good idea to make sure CCW holders are competent and responsible but unless the "competent" part is somehow standardized and quantifiable, it's worthless.
Re: firearms reality check
ok, so first of all everyone here has made good points backed up by facts or at least generalizations that are reasonable. But I'm still not satisfied (I know it's not about me...) with the answer that everyone has come up with, implicitly.
"There's nothing we can do to prevent shit like this. Furthermore, every thing's fine and we shouldn't try except to make weapons more ubiquitous."
I totally agree that reasonable restriction belongs to the states not the feds.
Violence originates in the violent not the weapon. I think we can all agree on that. So here we are, all weapon owners, users, enthusiasts, paraders, toters (sp?), appreciators, collectors, oh and citizens! And as a group we're ok with the fact that OUR weapons are being used..... badly. (I struggled for the right word there) And there's nothing we can do about it. That's loser talk, and I'm not buying.
ok, so first of all everyone here has made good points backed up by facts or at least generalizations that are reasonable. But I'm still not satisfied (I know it's not about me...) with the answer that everyone has come up with, implicitly.
"There's nothing we can do to prevent shit like this. Furthermore, every thing's fine and we shouldn't try except to make weapons more ubiquitous."
I totally agree that reasonable restriction belongs to the states not the feds.
Violence originates in the violent not the weapon. I think we can all agree on that. So here we are, all weapon owners, users, enthusiasts, paraders, toters (sp?), appreciators, collectors, oh and citizens! And as a group we're ok with the fact that OUR weapons are being used..... badly. (I struggled for the right word there) And there's nothing we can do about it. That's loser talk, and I'm not buying.
Re: firearms reality check
There *are* things that can be done about it. For example, eliminate gun free zones.
The batman shooter skipped on movie theatres closer to his home that DIDN'T ban guns on the premises...he went out of his way to go to one that DID ban guns.
Any place where people congregate, and are NOT ALLOWED to have guns to protect themselves with, makes an IDEAL place to launch an attack if you are twisted and want to murder people.
Again dude, you can regulate until you're blue in the face and until the cows come home, but the twisted fucks are going to get guns to do horrific things.
For example, drugs. Our government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the war on drugs. They've failed. They've tried every kind of regulation, every type of crack-down. Increased the size and wherewithall of the DEA. To no avail. Why? Because people WANT drugs. When people WANT something, they get it. Furthermore, when there is a demand for something, some entrepreneur somewhere is going to tool up to meet that demand.
The only thing that can be done is to allow people to protect themselves from the madmen.
There *are* things that can be done about it. For example, eliminate gun free zones.
The batman shooter skipped on movie theatres closer to his home that DIDN'T ban guns on the premises...he went out of his way to go to one that DID ban guns.
Any place where people congregate, and are NOT ALLOWED to have guns to protect themselves with, makes an IDEAL place to launch an attack if you are twisted and want to murder people.
Again dude, you can regulate until you're blue in the face and until the cows come home, but the twisted fucks are going to get guns to do horrific things.
For example, drugs. Our government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the war on drugs. They've failed. They've tried every kind of regulation, every type of crack-down. Increased the size and wherewithall of the DEA. To no avail. Why? Because people WANT drugs. When people WANT something, they get it. Furthermore, when there is a demand for something, some entrepreneur somewhere is going to tool up to meet that demand.
The only thing that can be done is to allow people to protect themselves from the madmen.
Re: firearms reality check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And as a group we're ok with the fact that OUR weapons are being used..... badly. (I struggled for the right word there) And there's nothing we can do about it. That's loser talk, and I'm not buying. </div></div>
This makes no sense. I'm not ok with anyone using my guns badly.
And while you may have meant the royal "our", I'm not responsible for "our" guns. I'm responsible for mine. And mine only.
Here it is in a nutshell ---
I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S CRIMES.
Further,
I AM NOT OK WITH BEING PUNISHED FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S CRIMES.
I didn't kill anyone. My rights, privileges, and property should not be affected by something that a mentally ill kid did. He is not my problem. Nor are the children that parents knowingly sent into an area where no one is legally allowed to defend themselves, or the children, with force against any assailant.
That ok with you?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And as a group we're ok with the fact that OUR weapons are being used..... badly. (I struggled for the right word there) And there's nothing we can do about it. That's loser talk, and I'm not buying. </div></div>
This makes no sense. I'm not ok with anyone using my guns badly.
And while you may have meant the royal "our", I'm not responsible for "our" guns. I'm responsible for mine. And mine only.
Here it is in a nutshell ---
I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S CRIMES.
Further,
I AM NOT OK WITH BEING PUNISHED FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S CRIMES.
I didn't kill anyone. My rights, privileges, and property should not be affected by something that a mentally ill kid did. He is not my problem. Nor are the children that parents knowingly sent into an area where no one is legally allowed to defend themselves, or the children, with force against any assailant.
That ok with you?
Re: firearms reality check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ok, so first of all everyone here has made good points backed up by facts or at least generalizations that are reasonable. But I'm still not satisfied (I know it's not about me...) with the answer that everyone has come up with, implicitly.
"There's nothing we can do to prevent shit like this. Furthermore, every thing's fine and we shouldn't try except to make weapons more ubiquitous."
I totally agree that reasonable restriction belongs to the states not the feds.
Violence originates in the violent not the weapon. I think we can all agree on that. So here we are, all weapon owners, users, enthusiasts, paraders, toters (sp?), appreciators, collectors, oh and citizens! And as a group we're ok with the fact that OUR weapons are being used..... badly. (I struggled for the right word there) And there's nothing we can do about it. That's loser talk, and I'm not buying. </div></div>
"There's nothing we can do to prevent shit like this. Furthermore, every thing's fine and we shouldn't try except to make weapons more ubiquitous."
Where did this come from? What are you fishing for? I didn't read or hear anyone, except you, state that firearms need to be everywhere.
Eliminating gun free zones would put a big crimp in the plans of these wack jobs, because a legal holder of a CCW permit could stop them or worse yet put them down. As it stands today, these cowards are absolutely certain they can enter a gun free zone and wreak mayhem on scores of innocent people before they make the final statement and end their own lives. Not knowing who's armed really puts a kink in their grand exit.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ok, so first of all everyone here has made good points backed up by facts or at least generalizations that are reasonable. But I'm still not satisfied (I know it's not about me...) with the answer that everyone has come up with, implicitly.
"There's nothing we can do to prevent shit like this. Furthermore, every thing's fine and we shouldn't try except to make weapons more ubiquitous."
I totally agree that reasonable restriction belongs to the states not the feds.
Violence originates in the violent not the weapon. I think we can all agree on that. So here we are, all weapon owners, users, enthusiasts, paraders, toters (sp?), appreciators, collectors, oh and citizens! And as a group we're ok with the fact that OUR weapons are being used..... badly. (I struggled for the right word there) And there's nothing we can do about it. That's loser talk, and I'm not buying. </div></div>
"There's nothing we can do to prevent shit like this. Furthermore, every thing's fine and we shouldn't try except to make weapons more ubiquitous."
Where did this come from? What are you fishing for? I didn't read or hear anyone, except you, state that firearms need to be everywhere.
Eliminating gun free zones would put a big crimp in the plans of these wack jobs, because a legal holder of a CCW permit could stop them or worse yet put them down. As it stands today, these cowards are absolutely certain they can enter a gun free zone and wreak mayhem on scores of innocent people before they make the final statement and end their own lives. Not knowing who's armed really puts a kink in their grand exit.
Re: firearms reality check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ok, so first of all everyone here has made good points backed up by facts or at least generalizations that are reasonable. But I'm still not satisfied (I know it's not about me...) with the answer that everyone has come up with, implicitly.
"There's nothing we can do to prevent shit like this. Furthermore, every thing's fine and we shouldn't try except to make weapons more ubiquitous."
I totally agree that reasonable restriction belongs to the states not the feds.
Violence originates in the violent not the weapon. I think we can all agree on that. So here we are, all weapon owners, users, enthusiasts, paraders, toters (sp?), appreciators, collectors, oh and citizens! And as a group we're ok with the fact that OUR weapons are being used..... badly. (I struggled for the right word there) And there's nothing we can do about it. That's loser talk, and I'm not buying. </div></div>
Let me start by acknowledging that I did not read all of each of your posts; however, I apreciate your sincerity and your willingness to accept others' points of view.
Here,I believe, is the greatest flaw in your position: You seem to believe that "laws" can/will prevent crime from happening. Laws merely prescribe penalties for when they are violated.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ok, so first of all everyone here has made good points backed up by facts or at least generalizations that are reasonable. But I'm still not satisfied (I know it's not about me...) with the answer that everyone has come up with, implicitly.
"There's nothing we can do to prevent shit like this. Furthermore, every thing's fine and we shouldn't try except to make weapons more ubiquitous."
I totally agree that reasonable restriction belongs to the states not the feds.
Violence originates in the violent not the weapon. I think we can all agree on that. So here we are, all weapon owners, users, enthusiasts, paraders, toters (sp?), appreciators, collectors, oh and citizens! And as a group we're ok with the fact that OUR weapons are being used..... badly. (I struggled for the right word there) And there's nothing we can do about it. That's loser talk, and I'm not buying. </div></div>
Let me start by acknowledging that I did not read all of each of your posts; however, I apreciate your sincerity and your willingness to accept others' points of view.
Here,I believe, is the greatest flaw in your position: You seem to believe that "laws" can/will prevent crime from happening. Laws merely prescribe penalties for when they are violated.
Re: firearms reality check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again dude, you can regulate until you're blue in the face and until the cows come home, but the twisted fucks are going to get guns to do horrific things.
</div></div>
No I get it.... again. What I'm interested in are ideas put forth that might make a difference in the long term on the crazy fuck side. Not necessarily more regs on guns, though i'd be willing to listen as I have mentioned. We live in a culture that glorifies violence as a solution. Everything from COD and that new Tom Criuse flick, to books and movies not 2 months post Osama. (another place that $25K in the right place will get you past the curtain.... scientology. anyway, I digress...) I'm hearing... again, that there's nothing in our gun culture that needs reexamining, only that we more CCW.
Mike, (if you're still here) I'm on board with insurance against tyranny, but what about a societal need for insurance against lunatics? More CCW right? I know some folks that probably could get a CCW... no way I want them armed. They wouldn't or couldn't make the call that young man in portland made. Don't get me started on Zimmerman.
BTW, we see you at Jakes match? (no reference above to Jake
)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again dude, you can regulate until you're blue in the face and until the cows come home, but the twisted fucks are going to get guns to do horrific things.
</div></div>
No I get it.... again. What I'm interested in are ideas put forth that might make a difference in the long term on the crazy fuck side. Not necessarily more regs on guns, though i'd be willing to listen as I have mentioned. We live in a culture that glorifies violence as a solution. Everything from COD and that new Tom Criuse flick, to books and movies not 2 months post Osama. (another place that $25K in the right place will get you past the curtain.... scientology. anyway, I digress...) I'm hearing... again, that there's nothing in our gun culture that needs reexamining, only that we more CCW.
Mike, (if you're still here) I'm on board with insurance against tyranny, but what about a societal need for insurance against lunatics? More CCW right? I know some folks that probably could get a CCW... no way I want them armed. They wouldn't or couldn't make the call that young man in portland made. Don't get me started on Zimmerman.
BTW, we see you at Jakes match? (no reference above to Jake
Re: firearms reality check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: herro prease</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Here it is in a nutshell ---
I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S CRIMES.
Further,
I AM NOT OK WITH BEING PUNISHED.........
That ok with you? </div></div>
Totally, and I appreciate the honesty. The unfortunate reality is that you (and I) will be punished unless we can keep better control of OUR (royal our, I loved that btw) weapons. Simple as that. Be part of the solution, or hide your head...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: herro prease</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Here it is in a nutshell ---
I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S CRIMES.
Further,
I AM NOT OK WITH BEING PUNISHED.........
That ok with you? </div></div>
Totally, and I appreciate the honesty. The unfortunate reality is that you (and I) will be punished unless we can keep better control of OUR (royal our, I loved that btw) weapons. Simple as that. Be part of the solution, or hide your head...
Re: firearms reality check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Xshot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Eliminating gun free zones would put a big crimp in the plans of these wack jobs, because a legal holder of a CCW permit could stop them or worse yet put them down. As it stands today, these cowards are absolutely certain they can enter a gun free zone and wreak mayhem on scores of innocent people before they make the final statement and end their own lives. Not knowing who's armed really puts a kink in their grand exit.
</div></div>
Agree. Gun Free zones = bad. My use of hyperbole or devils advocate has been poorly executed. With ya on the above quote.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Xshot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Eliminating gun free zones would put a big crimp in the plans of these wack jobs, because a legal holder of a CCW permit could stop them or worse yet put them down. As it stands today, these cowards are absolutely certain they can enter a gun free zone and wreak mayhem on scores of innocent people before they make the final statement and end their own lives. Not knowing who's armed really puts a kink in their grand exit.
</div></div>
Agree. Gun Free zones = bad. My use of hyperbole or devils advocate has been poorly executed. With ya on the above quote.
Re: firearms reality check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: patsim</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Let me start by acknowledging that I did not read all of each of your posts; however, I apreciate your sincerity and your willingness to accept others' points of view.
Here,I believe, is the greatest flaw in your position: You seem to believe that "laws" can/will prevent crime from happening. Laws merely prescribe penalties for when they are violated. </div></div>
And I appreciate the willingness of folks to express said views in the face of challenges.
I don't believe that laws affect 'law breakers' until after the fact (and then not often enough). What I can't get out of my head is that a knife or a k-frame or an AR are all equally attractive to the nut jobs who decide on some random tuesday afternoon that the vengeance they're seeking is finally going to happen. Availability to nut jobs. That's what's eating me. I've been thinking long and hard about what I can personally do to keep my weapons out of the hands of... well anyone but me. I'm not sure I can do much more than I am, but I live next to a school. I don't carry even though I have the CWP.
I dunno... the whole issue, what happened, what might happen, how it happened... it just makes me sick. I'm tired of my responsible gun ownership being blamed. Right or wrong.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: patsim</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Let me start by acknowledging that I did not read all of each of your posts; however, I apreciate your sincerity and your willingness to accept others' points of view.
Here,I believe, is the greatest flaw in your position: You seem to believe that "laws" can/will prevent crime from happening. Laws merely prescribe penalties for when they are violated. </div></div>
And I appreciate the willingness of folks to express said views in the face of challenges.
I don't believe that laws affect 'law breakers' until after the fact (and then not often enough). What I can't get out of my head is that a knife or a k-frame or an AR are all equally attractive to the nut jobs who decide on some random tuesday afternoon that the vengeance they're seeking is finally going to happen. Availability to nut jobs. That's what's eating me. I've been thinking long and hard about what I can personally do to keep my weapons out of the hands of... well anyone but me. I'm not sure I can do much more than I am, but I live next to a school. I don't carry even though I have the CWP.
I dunno... the whole issue, what happened, what might happen, how it happened... it just makes me sick. I'm tired of my responsible gun ownership being blamed. Right or wrong.
Re: firearms reality check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Xshot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Obamacare law provides the feds complete access to your personal health record and all financial records - including transactions.
</div></div>
I don't know much about the Obabacare bill, could you elaborate on the part about the financial records or where I could find more info on this.
Thanks
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Xshot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Obamacare law provides the feds complete access to your personal health record and all financial records - including transactions.
</div></div>
I don't know much about the Obabacare bill, could you elaborate on the part about the financial records or where I could find more info on this.
Thanks
Re: firearms reality check
i've read/skimmed through most of these posts and most are very well written and at the very least make some sense....i think that there is a pretty simple way to keep these loons from shooting up innocent people. Eliminate doc/patient confidentiality in the mental health field when a patient could be potentially dangerous to the public or an individual. In almost every case over the last 4 years the said "nutjob" has voiced evil thoughts/intentions to mental health professionals or doctors. Had the docs been able to speak up and blow the whistle, at least two of these events could have been prevented all together. As always, the gun was simply the tool used by the maniac....it could've just as easily been a truck full of diesel and fertilizer or any other IED.
Its not the guns, its the mentally ill/dimented
i've read/skimmed through most of these posts and most are very well written and at the very least make some sense....i think that there is a pretty simple way to keep these loons from shooting up innocent people. Eliminate doc/patient confidentiality in the mental health field when a patient could be potentially dangerous to the public or an individual. In almost every case over the last 4 years the said "nutjob" has voiced evil thoughts/intentions to mental health professionals or doctors. Had the docs been able to speak up and blow the whistle, at least two of these events could have been prevented all together. As always, the gun was simply the tool used by the maniac....it could've just as easily been a truck full of diesel and fertilizer or any other IED.
Its not the guns, its the mentally ill/dimented
Re: firearms reality check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ajwcotton</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Xshot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Obamacare law provides the feds complete access to your personal health record and all financial records - including transactions.
</div></div>
I don't know much about the Obabacare bill, could you elaborate on the part about the financial records or where I could find more info on this.
Thanks </div></div>
You could read the actual legislation, but I wouldn't recommend it. Google is you friend in this case. Check and verify.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ajwcotton</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Xshot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Obamacare law provides the feds complete access to your personal health record and all financial records - including transactions.
</div></div>
I don't know much about the Obabacare bill, could you elaborate on the part about the financial records or where I could find more info on this.
Thanks </div></div>
You could read the actual legislation, but I wouldn't recommend it. Google is you friend in this case. Check and verify.
