What is it with you gun lovers? Don’t you see damage they do?

What is it with you gun lovers? (And I feel as though I am asking the minority of Americans).

You cling to the Second Amendment as though it were written yesterday; it was written 228 years ago, and back then, the “arms to bear” were single-shot rifles or pistols. What if the amendment stated: “Only single-shot arms allowed”?

Even I would approve of that, and I hate guns. Why do any of you need a automatic rifle?

How anyone can find “beauty in a well-designed and manufactured rifle or pistol” is beyond my comprehension. There is absolutely no beauty is a “manufactured and designed” device, that, when loaded with a powered projectile, is capable of the destruction it can administer.

Oh, I forgot! It’s not the gun that kills?

A few years ago, President Obama attended a town hall meeting in a city that has laws on the book, allowing one to carry a loaded gun. (Portsmouth, N.H.). A man there attended this meeting with a pistol and holster strapped to his leg. Do you suppose he felt threatened by The President being there? (“Is The President gonna pull out a gun and try to shoot me?”)

Why teach a 12-year-old how to shoot a automatic rifle, or any other powerful weapon?

(If she rolls her eyes at you, give her the water pistol and she will be much happier.) You don’t know the memories that might cling to a child, when the child is taught unordinary teachings. I’ve never been to a gun range, but I would assume that, once the firing is completed, that you examine your target to review, not the damage done to the target, but your accuracy. You would not want any student to see the damages that these same type bullets could inflict upon flesh and bone; even the news media won’t show us the horror of it all.

When I was a child, a father in our neighborhood thought he heard a burglar in the middle of the night, and he took his loaded pistol from beneath his pillow, and killed his only son. You could hear the mother crying throughout the neighborhood. She cried for three days and three nights. And I cried too.

One of my best friends loved guns, and he had a locked gun rack cabinet in his home. His young son learned how to “pick the lock,” and killed himself. The guns and gun rack are no longer in my friend’s home.

After completing my four years in the US Air Force, I started college, under the GI Bill.

After the first quarter, I went home that weekend to visit my parents. Looking through the closet, I found the trusty old BB gun that I had as a young boy. With nothing better to do, I went for a walk in the woods behind our home. I spotted a bird in a tree, aimed, and pulled the trigger.

The bird fell to the ground. I walked over to examine my “kill,” and picked up the lifeless body of what had been a beautiful woodpecker.

Immediately I asked myself, ”Why?” I buried the bird, took the rifle home, smashed it to pieces, and put it in the garbage can.

Since that time, I have fired no weapon, not even a sling shot. No guns are in my home. I can still laugh, though, at fun with a water pistol.

I must agree that a deranged individual who has thoughts of causing bodily harm to others has more than guns as his weapon of choice; but we should at least start the framework of trying to make the gun less popular for these sick people. The Coalition To Stop Gun Violence would be the place to start.

Hugh Buchanan

Peachtree City, Ga.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
jpopeye-My pledge to you!
Quote:

A private citizen who owns a gun for "protection" owns a gun to shoot people. A private citizen who carries a gun does not want to miss an opportunity to shoot people. It is what it is.

WOW!! As a private citizen that owns a gun I promise that if I ever come across you or your family while you're being robbed, mugged, attacked by a wild dog or whatever, I will not help.

Maybe then you'll see that I don't look for ways to shoot somebody!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
So what does a Criminal carry a gun for jpop?

...and do I not have the Right to protect myself and my family..?

...and with 50 Million Concealed Carry Americans out there why have we not gone back to the Wild, Wild, West IF all we want to do is shoot people>
Illogical and juvenile response.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Obama's vision of gun control

From the LA Times

"Like the majority of Americans, I believe that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms," Obama said. But "I am also betting that the majority -- the vast majority -- of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would be some of the first to say that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few from buying a weapon of war.”

Other than the very vague "weapon of war" - whatever that is - I don't really have a problem with his view.

What does concern me is the "end-game" of many gun control advocates.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Cyclist

What weapons fall under the 'weapons of war' identification?

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Davids mom

Beats me. Perhaps JeffC knows.

MajorMike
MajorMike's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/20/2005
Cyclist - this may help define "weapons of war"

Obama's Gun Ban List Is Out
Alan Korwin - Author Gun Laws Of America
GunLaws.com
3-12-9

Here it is, folks, and it is bad news. The framework for legislation is always laid, and the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they want to impose upon us. They really do not believe you need anything more than a brick to defend your home and family. Look at the list and see how many you own. Remember, it is registration, then confiscation. It has happened in the UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that for some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know that you did.

Remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the citizens.

Gun-ban list proposed. Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Brady's plan to introduce shortly. I have an outline of the Brady's current plans and targets of opportunity. It's horrific. They're going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They've made little mention of criminals. Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states' rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment. The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
M1 Carbine,
Sturm Ruger Mini-14,
AR-15,
Bushmaster XM15,
Armalite M15,
AR-10,
Thompson 1927,
Thompson M1;
AK,
AKM,
AKS,
AK-47,
AK-74,
ARM,
MAK90,
NHM 90,
NHM 91,
SA 85,
SA 93,
VEPR;
Olympic Arms PCR;
AR70,
Calico Liberty ,
Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,
Fabrique National FN/FAL,
FN/LAR, or FNC,
Hi-Point20Carbine,
HK-91,
HK-93,
HK-94,
HK-PSG-1,
Thompson 1927 Commando,
Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
Saiga,
SAR-8,
SAR-4800,
SKS with detachable magazine,
SLG 95,
SLR 95 or 96,
Steyr AU,
Tavor,
Uzi,
Galil and Uzi Sporter,
Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).

Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110,
MAC-10,
MAC-11, or MPA3,
Olympic Arms OA,
TEC-9,
TEC-DC9,
TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,
Uzi.
Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG,
SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
Striker 12,
Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see
below),
(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).
A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a
detachable magazine, and has:
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10
rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity
of more than 5 rounds, and
(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.
Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."

Note that Obama's pick for this office, Eric Holder, wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event." In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.

The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose -- is that devious or what? And of course, "sporting purpose" is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.

Respectfully submitted, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm

Forward or send to every gun owner you know...
Watch This, If You Want More Proof:
YouTube - CNN- Obama To BAN Guns SPREAD THIS FOLKS, PLZ!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv3p2lLmjGk

A partial list of gun rights groups:

Gun Owners of America
http://gunowners.org/

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
http://www.jpfo.org/

FREEDOM=GUNS
http://www.tcsn.net/doncicci/freedom.htm

National Rifle Association
http://www.nra.org/

Second Amendment Committee
http://www.libertygunrights.com/

Second Amendment Foundation
http://www.saf.org/

Second Amendment Sisters
http://www.2asisters.org/

Women Against Gun Control
http://www.wagc.com/

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
MajorMike

If this becomes the law of realm I will become a criminal.

Honestly, this is exactly what I suspect that will come out Biden's "little" group especially since he was task to come up with a plan in January.

Yup pass a law and turn a citizen into a criminal but yet we'll grant amnesty to illegals. Go figure.

Git Real
Git Real's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/17/2006
Molon Labe

I do not trust my gubment enough to turn my freedom and personal safety guarantors over to the corrupt, thieving, intrusive and confiscatory elitist class that has taken over our once great republic. Let freedom ring once again.....

Peace, joy, happiness, health, and opportunity to all who tread not on their neigbors and fellow Americans during this Christmas, Hanukkah and New Years season.

Larry Sussberg
Larry Sussberg's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/12/2009
BiPlane - Get A Grip, Reality Check!

First you present the most pedestrian of all arguments on gun control comparing auto deaths to gun deaths. That is an angrument that has been used and debated for years and proven to be totally useless since there is no detail data to draw proper conclusions..Even proposing it on the blog displays your low intellectual level (or as you would define "a lightweight"). That's why no one responded to your first post on the issue, including me.

Now, you call for a mental health program, a cry to address the issue. This coming from a man who 7 weeks ago refused to support public education with lame excuses pointing to better school systems in TX and VA, then personally whining about McIntosh. Meanwhile, ESLOST money is being used to help improve security in our elementary schools!

"GOOD CITIZEN BOBBY" emerges whining for the thousands of Americans in need of mental health services, and asking for improved services.

Really Bobby, you would be the first one screaming if it cost a nickel in taxes, or if more regulations were enacted at state or Federal levels to enforce it crying BIG GOVERNMENT waste, or if government had to expand which it will to support any program.

So Bobby, first you show you are a mental midget by laying out the auto vs gun argument, now we see what a hypocrite you are...

And to top it off, you quote the FOUNDERS and the First Amendment as an excuse to act like a bully on this blog calling out Mr. Buchanan followed by me.

Please sir! enough! get a grip on your personal realities before bullying others.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
obama let school violence prevention programs lapse

For a 'president' that loves to spend our tax dollars so willy-nilly, he sure did pick the wrong place to cut funds. He should have spent the money that he gave to his cronies at the failed Solyndra on the violence prevention programs.

Before Connecticut tragedy, administration eliminated emergency preparedness program,let school violence prevention programs lapse

Beneath the expressions of grief, sorrow and disbelief over the Connecticut school massacre lies an uneasy truth in Washington: over the last few years the Obama administration quietly let federal funding for several key school security programs lapse in the name of budget savings.

BobbyBiplane
BobbyBiplane's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/21/2007
Where are the discussions about mental health services????

Where is the American discussion about mental health services? I long for the leadership of Tipper Gore verses on this issue verses the mis-direction of Obama, Reid and Feinstein.

Lost in the BS and political mis-direction over gun ownership and "rights" and restrictions and "control" are the many hundreds of thousands of Americans afflicted with mental health disabilities and not receiving services. This is the real tragedy and real issue.

Mr. Larry (and others so afflicted with myopia and a lack of ability to identify actual issues) ... where are you on the real issue here ... (HINT - the gross lack of acceptance of those with mental health issues and the even larger lack of services for those with mental health issues)? Have we not seen folks unable to control emotions use obscure weapons? I, for one, am tired of your BS.

And, as a final note, Larry - I have cradled the dying body of a young child shot by a combatant high velocity bullet - have you? If you have not, please stop the bullshit you spew. You know not what you speak.

Bob

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
I think as BB mental health needs to be re visited

The laws on mentaly ill as stand...you can have someone commited only for 2 days oberservaton....but...first you must go before a judge and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this person is an immediate danger to killing themselves or someone else. That is very hard.

Very often people realize someone is a real threat, but unless you can talk that person into commiting themselves, nothing can be done. Lets face it, most crazy/insane people, will tell you there is nothing wrong with them.

You put that together with the civil liberties group and you have a lethal combo.

Laws need to be changed so if it appears there is a ' strong possibility' someone could kill someone if left uncounciled, they should be involentarily committed for observation. This could save a lot of lives.

I don't own a gun, and I do feel some are too hung up on them, HOWEVER, it is people, and their motives, that kill other people.

We have a lot of people that a border line. Have you ever talked to some of these homeless? Some are one brick short and much closer to being a killer than you think!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
BobbyBlane

Google it. Discussion is being held from the front porch to The White House. Read the article "I'm Adam Lanza's Mother". Dr. Gupta and many other experts have been discussing this. Our own local governments are looking at how we handle/support families who have a member who needs help. The conversation is going on. Emotions are pretty raw now - but IMO progress is being made in realizing this problem exceeds 'gun control'.

BobbyBiplane
BobbyBiplane's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/21/2007
Larry Sussberg is still a mental lightweight

Larry:

Although I swore off arguing with you, I am fed up with your lack of basic arguement skills and general lack of intelligence.

If your concern is with the dangers/risk to humans of pieces of equipment/devices, your arguments about guns of any type is scurrilous without a similar discussion about the dangers of automobiles (yes, I known the definition is:"befitting a vulgar buffon"- which you seem to be). If your argument is "I don't like guns," then "man up" and say that.

Where is your concern for the THOUSANDS killed and maimed by automobiles every year? Why no discussion of this tragedy?

Your insistence on demeaning the author of arguments opposing your world view is that similar to those of a number of Chicago politicians of yore.

Larry, you regularly prove my lack of faith in the future of America. I am hopeful that I will not be around to see America managed/led by mental lightweights like you.

Bob

Larry Sussberg
Larry Sussberg's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/12/2009
BobbyBiPlane-Act Like An Adult

I do not understand why you persist with this rude, disrepectful behavior and I suggest you stop since its a poor reflection on you, not me.

Every post on this blog, whatever the topic, when you post you are condescending, rude and disrespectful. Who has given you the right to speak to people this way? Why do you think this is acceptable behavior? Is it because you post anonymously?

One of the many reasons why America faces the problems its does is because we have allowed people like you to conduct themselves this way.

It's in our music, movies, TV, video games. Many of our elected officials behave this way and it is not acceptable.

Shame on you. Act like an adult and behavor like one, not a 5 year old looking for attention by name calling.

And, in response to one of your odd accusatory comments, I own a Beretta DT10 Trident, if you look it up its and "over&under" not a semi-automatic by choice. I am also victim of a gun related crime not that has to do with anything you have stated in your absurd post.

jpopeye
jpopeye's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/21/2005
"One of the many reasons"

I do not think it is one, I think it is THE reason. Gun control is not going to fix the problem, mental health treatment will not either. The problem is all of us. Those who verbally attack are experiencing the same feelings as those who attack in other ways. We accept a culture that allows behavior intended to divide in place of unite. Those who persist in inappropriate conduct create a culture that is divisive and by design exclusionary. A nurturing culture that treats each person in a respectful and appropriate way greatly increases the feeling of inclusion. For those who still feel excluded a nurturing culture reduces the anger and opportunities to direct fear and retribution at the culture itself. Those who feel apart from our culture are without rational connection to the rest of us, and they have no natural limitation to hurting what does not care for them. Please care for each other by demonstrating civility at all times.

Larry Sussberg
Larry Sussberg's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/12/2009
JPOPEYE - BOBBYBIPLANE

I get it, unfortunately, Bobby feels he can act this way because its covered in the Bill of Rights by the Founding Fathers.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
JPOPEYE

Thank you. Demonstrating civility at all times was what those who participated in the sit-ins and marches during the Civil Rights movement were trained to demonstrate. IT WAS NOT EASY. But it paid off!

BobbyBiplane
BobbyBiplane's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/21/2007
Another Useless Response

Larry:

I don't give a crap whether you own a gun or don't This has no impact on argument. In response to your Bullshit, I do not own a gun and do not intend to either own one or debate this issue.

Your words "One of the many reasons why America faces the problems its does is because we have allowed people like you to conduct themselves this way" are very disturbing. My thoughts - you must be kidding me. Since when is it an Americn value to not permit people to opine / rant? I, for one, value my "right" to be the butthead that I am. Why would you fear alternate opinion other than your inability to debate / permit alternative opinion?

Larry: I will continue to rail against you and anyone else I choose to rant against. I believe this was the intent of the founders.

Please feel free to rant against me, I enjoy it. Your regularly demonstrated lack of both intelligent argument and logic are an example of all that is wrong with both America and discourse in general. Please continue your diatribes. It serves to reinforce my positions and creates amusement.

Very best regrads,
Bob

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Self-identification - a good sign

BobbyBiplane

Quote:

I, for one, value my "right" to be the butthead that I am.

Thanks!

BobbyBiplane
BobbyBiplane's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/21/2007
Larry, your lack of intelligent argument ...

is the cause of my disdain. As long as you continue to produce the rubbish you spew, I will continue to call you an it. Simply stated, you are a logical lightweight. You should be called on this if YOU insist on posting.

Bob

Larry Sussberg
Larry Sussberg's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/12/2009
Bobby BiPlane - A Bully & Intellectual Lightweight

Bobby,
You need to be totally honest with yourself. When you post, whatever the topic you are attacking people and you are condescending and rude. You know it and I know it. And anyone who types your name in the Citizen search engine and reads your posts will know it too. Sorry but that's the truth. You are rude in your attacks and show limited thought on the issues,such as autos vs guns. So, let's have tat intellectual argument which I prefer to call a debate that you claim I am incapable of having...

As for your comparison on auto deaths compared to gun deaths, that is the most pedestrian argument that has been used even the NRA has dropped it. That's because there is no quantitative or qualitative analytics available past the raw data itself.

From 2000 to 2009 the CDC reports that 417,000 people died in auto related incidents. 298,000 people have died in gun related incidents, almost all in murder/suicide cases.

Americans own 270 million guns (out of 875 million world-wide) and 255,000 million automobiles.

So, based upon that data, it is easy to say more people die from autos than guns.

Bobby, it's not that simple and the experts both pro and con on guns agree.

More detailed data does not exist that can identify the actual number of gun owners as it relates to gun deaths. We know that there are 199 million licensed drivers in the US but we don't have any data on gun ownership to draw the analysis. The same is true for identifying the number of times a day someone drives a car as compared to number of times a day a gun owner transports or fires a gun. No data do draw more accurate quantitative analysis.

Also, to possibly draw a closer comparison, someone might argue that one should separate auto deaths from random accidents vs auto deaths due to intentional accidents, those caused by reckless driving where manslaughter charges would have been filed since gun deaths from murder/suicide are intentional as well.

Let me try to break down another argument since we are speaking about guns and autos and I'll do it in a more fundamental way.

It is far easier to obtain a gun permit then to obtain a driver license. Simply walk into the store, fill out the paperwork, and with if you have no criminal record, you are eventually good to go varying state from state
Once you own that gun you have to prove you know how to transport, use and store it responsibly. Yet when anyone gets a driver license one has to take a written test, and road test to prove one's skills

On a daily basis, drivers are expected to drive the speed limits. Police are out looking for people who are also driving irresponsibly, and we are even subjected to random road blocks to check for drunk drivers. There is law enforcement checking to make sure drivers follow the rules.

Not so for guns.

Owning and using a gun in the US is a right therefore its easy to obtain. Actually, there are really no rules. Driving a car is a responsibility. Drivers are trained and tested to prove they can operate an auto, and it is monitored by law enforcement.

Bobby

Your argument on guns vs autos does not work, its not an argument that both sides have vacated because they agree that there is not enough quantitative or qualitative data is available.

I know from reading your posts, on this issue and other topics, you pride yourself on your high level of intelligence because in every discussion you point out that the other party is pathetic, a light weight, stupid and so on, but in this case, using autos vs guns, proves you are the lightweight here.

So, take a hint and knock it off....and respond to people with the respect that everyone deserves.

You started this attack, first on Mr. Buchanan then me.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
My Two Cents...

One of the posters below has it exactly right in that owning any gun/firearm carries with it personal responsibility. Owning a weapon entails keeping it away from those who are mentally incapable of understanding the consequences that could arise, among other things. Generally gun ownership is maintained by two sects of individuals that frequently overlap; guns for sport and guns for protection.
Those who own guns for sport are hunters who supplement their diet with venison, wild foul, or the like. Additionally, we have a growing segment of gun owners who simply like to shoot just for sport such as skeet. The same could be said of antique gun collectors.
Those who own guns for protection are those who understand that it is NOT the responsibility of law enforcement to provide that protection. Police departments are obligated to investigate criminal acts after they occur, but have no obligation to protect the public from an impending crime. In fact, the responsibility for self protection rests with individuals.
I stand prepared to defend myself and family from harm in the manner I deem appropriate, and I take responsibility to both safeguard and maintain the weapons I possess.
Should my stance offend anyone, tough.

Dogood Quietly
Dogood Quietly's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2010
inconvenient news

interesting that this is not being discussed or reported

http://minutemennews.com/2012/12/oregon-mall-shooting-brave-citizen-with...

Dogood Quietly
Dogood Quietly's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2010
inconvenient news

interesting that this is not being discussed or reported

http://minutemennews.com/2012/12/oregon-mall-shooting-brave-citizen-with...

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Makes a strong argument for arming teachers

See, you don't even have to shoot these thugs to stop them. They plan on killing themselves anyway. Show up, point a gun at them and they end it. Only real question is do you want somebody to show up right away as in already being there and limiting it to 2 killed OR would you prefer to give the shooter a 10-minute head start so he can kill 26?

No, you won't see a lot of that in the media. The powers that be want more regulation over us and this is a great way to get it - get credit for a vote limiting something or another that creates a law that won't be obeyed. Good sound bites, bad leadership.

Train the teachers and arm the ones who want to protect their kids without sacrificing their own lives. Give them a choice. Having an armed resource officer there everyday might be seen as a deterrent, but I think the determined shooter can work around that by planning - and it seems they do plan. But not knowing which teacher has a gun in their purse or fanny pack can be a real deterrent and a way to stop the killing sooner rather than later.

For once, let us make a practical decision instead of a whining, liberal, hand-wringing, populist one.

Larry Sussberg
Larry Sussberg's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/12/2009
Steve

I've heard all of the arguments....every single one but it's time to take semi-automatic assault rifles off the market.

We can blame the shooters, we can blame the owners for not locking them up, we can blame law enforcement for not enforcing....we can even blame the bad guys for owning them which is why we need them. Sorry, I'm not buying these arguments anymore and I'll give you 26 reasons why, 14 who were 5 years old and 6 who were 6 years old.

Really, its time to ban these type of weapons, not all guns.

At this point in time,many conservatives can't argue in favor of keeping them...and the NRA is silent.

There is no reason for anyone to own an assault weapon.

And that only fixes part of the problem! Owning a gun is a responsibitity, not a right, its time to make sure those buying a gun are responsible and it only works if every state follows the same rules too. NYC studies continually show that murders and robberies committed by guns are from guns purchased from other states.

Meanwhile, what do you think a 5 year old child, weighing 30-40 lbs looks like after receiving multiple gun shot wounds fired from a semi-automatic rifle at point blank range? Frankly, I never want to see that, and yes it can happen here!

Why not make it harder for people to get them, if it helps to avoid this again?

Just my humble opinion...and just my opinion. Meanwhile, thank you for keeping this debate civil, we need more of that in our country and here.

PTC Avenger
PTC Avenger's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/08/2008
Assault Weapon Reasons
Larry Sussberg wrote:

There is no reason for anyone to own an assault weapon.

Defending your home and family from multiple intruders?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Larry Sussberg, you are

Larry Sussberg, you are correct, things can be done. We don’t have to stand around with our hands in our pockets as school children are mowed down like useless weeds. Read up on the subject, contact you elected representatives, and tell them what you think should be done. I did.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

Don’t wait for a tragedy like this to happen in your hometown, it will be too late, now is the time to act.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
What "Things" can be done?

The Brady Campaign has NO answers Gort been debating those guys for years.

Unless you add in Confiscation gun bans will not work.. Prove me wrong.. Find me an example in the US where it has worked. Find me where it has worked in any free Country.

Fact is it hasn't worked anywhere. Now if you did like Australia and banned, incentified buy back then added confiscation you get these results:

Armed Robberies increased 69%

Armed Assaults increased 28%

Murders increased 19%

Home Invasions up 21%

This is our future well no not really because as a people we will not give up our guns without a fight so.... What are you going to do?

That's right...Nothing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p8RDWltHxRc

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Larry

Like you I have heard all the arguments.

None of which make any sense and are not worth the breath it took to utter them.

I am not going into my usual long diatribe and argue why you are wrong...instead I would like to ask you this.
"
How do you propose to implement your so-called "Assault" weapons ban this time so it really works?

First you face the Constitutional question. Your side say there is no way the founders could have envisioned 600 round per minute rifles. My side would say then since they could not have envisioned the Internet then the 1st wouldn't apply to it. So that argument won't float.

Then you face the issue of the ban.. The 1994 "Scary" gun ban failed to stop the 1998 Columbine shooting so there is precedent that bans do not work.

So now you are at confiscation.
Like Terry said there are OVER 2 MILLION "Assault/Scary" guns already in the hands of LAW ABIDING AMERICANS. So the only way to enforce that ban is by seizure.

How do you propose doing that?

First we are back to the Constitutional question specifically the 2nd Amendment and second you have an issue with the 4th Amendment the moment you empower the Police or Military to seize the guns, not to mention igniting the second American Civil War.

So what are you going to do..?

The Answer? Nothing.

Maybe pile on some more meaningless Regulations, let some Politicians pound their chest and you go off feeling good about yourself while accomplishing NOTHING.

Go ahead enact all the Laws you want... because the next "tragic" event that happens I hope you will remember that you "tried" to do "SOMETHING" so that when the rest of us tell you I told you so.. You can still say to yourself well at least I tried. After all it not the results it is the intention that matters right?

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
Until you lock up all the crazies out there..

it will NOT matter what is banned.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Larry -Banning assault rifles would not have changed Sandy Hook

It wouldnt have changed anything. I have written several times now in the last few days pointing out that columbine didnt have any assault rifles. They had pistols, shotguns and homemade explosives. Virgina tech, pistols. Arizona shooting, pistol. The deadliest school killing in American history, homemade bombs. The deadliest mass murder in american history, OKC homemade bomb. Yes, the Sandy hook shooter had an assault rifle, but he also had two pistols. If he hadnt have had a rifle, nothing would have been different, he would have just used his pistols. Do you think a small child would have fared any better recieving multiple bullets from a pistol? The Aurora shooter had one, but if he hadnt have had one, nothing would have been different, he would have just bought pistols instead. Not ahving access to an assault rifle would not have made him less deranged. one of the Columbine shooters used mags with only 10 round capacity. But he had 13 of them, thats still 130 bullets. The point is that there are already laws in place against all this stuff! Using instructions acquired upon the Internet, Harris and Klebold constructed a total of 99 improvised explosive devices of various designs and sizes. They sawed the barrels and butts off their shotguns to make them easier to conceal. The perpetrators committed numerous felony violations of state and federal law, including the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, even before the massacre began. Larry, all of these shooters already commited crimes just to get to the places where the massacers occoured. Clearly, they dont care about the law! What will passing more laws do, except create aditional burdens on people who are already law abiding and were never going to break the law in the first place?

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Larry, assault rifle ban is the argument of the . . .

. . . uninformed, and the red herring of the dishonest.

On Sunday I heard a CONSERVATIVE pundit describe semi-automatic rate of fire as 5-6 rounds per second. He got it wrong AGAIN, whipping up viewer frenzy in error AGAIN, and he was actually describing AUTOMATIC which has been illegal for well over 30 years.

Semi-automatic fires with each trigger pull and release, and presumably an aim in between. If anti-gun enthusiasts want to ban semi-automatic guns, that would include not only assault rifles but many hunting rifles and about a thousand types of pistols, including the 1911 style .45, which has been a standard since the year 1911. No more semi-auto shotguns for duck hunting.

The only thing left would be bolt action rifles and revolvers. But what about lever action rifles, like the beautifully-made Henry rifle series? You can fire those as fast as a semi-auto so I guess they would have to be banned, too. And revolvers can also be fired as fast as the trigger is pulled so I guess we have to get rid of them as well.

And even if you did all of this, there are still over 2 million weapons out there in the US, including high capacity magazines, and they will be around after you and I are dead and gone.

Besides, trying to do anything like a radical semi-auto ban is a non-starter, will never happen no matter how long the tear-jerking 24-7 handwringing coverage continues.

Now for assault rifles. I own one. The ONLY difference between my assault rifle and other semi-auto guns is how it looks. The whole assault weapon ban is SYMBOLIC baloney that accomplishes nothing. Stats from the ban in the past show it made no difference at all in any crime rate.

As for the bedwetters who question why I NEED an assault rifle, the answer is two-fold. I don't need it, but I want it. I like firing at the range, and if I ever hunt deer again I will use that rifle.

But liberals who pee their pants because a rifle has a pistol grip on it simply have their head where the sun don't shine, and the public laps it up like idiots.

Juan Williams on Fox News said yesterday, "We have to do SOMETHING!" That is the stupid imperative of legislators, add to the pile of laws and regulations that already govern our lives. The perps in these mass shootings are already breaking fistsfull of laws, so lets make some new laws.

Legislators will probably end up passing a few new laws restricting this or that, and while they congratulate each other it will be as effective as a fart in a hurricane.

Terry Garlock

Larry Sussberg
Larry Sussberg's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/12/2009
Terry Garlock

There has to be a workable solution...

Ban or limit high capacity magazines
Increase wait time
Require a national standard for testing in order to obtain a gun permit like a drivers license. With a renewal and maintenance process.

Personally, I'm not against guns, but this problem continues to grow and I totally agree that only focusing on guns and permits is not the total or only solution..... It's requires a lot thought and actions... But burying our heads in the sand is not the answer either.

Thanks

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Mr. Sussberg - We

should all be relieved now, we have that mental giant of a man Mr. Biden working on this with a new commission I guess.

Now if he can figure out how to keep some of those 300 million firearms out of the hands of lunatics, well he's a better man than most. Oh yes, and do it without violating the 2nd and 14th Amendments.......that will be something to behold.

IMHO, we should focus our attention on those that pull the trigger. Arm and train those teachers that want to be armed and trained, but above all get involved in spotting those that could do harm to innocent people and confront it head on by calling the appropriate authorities.

Larry Sussberg
Larry Sussberg's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/12/2009
PTC Observer

I agree with you in part but what you propose is a no win situation.

Why, because implementation of a mental health program at State or Federal level will bring complaints against BIGGER GOVERNMENT and
should staff be needed for assistance and enforcement, those same cries will wail against a new breaucracy created.

And, there will be cries when people's freedoms and personal rights are infringed on, even those in need of mental health care.

We have had systems in the past, right or wrong and the people didn't want to pay for it, so in budget cuts we closed the public institutions.

There are many steps we need to take to fix the problems but we all need to be on the same page.

As for guns, we need to protect the 2nd amendment but we can start by making sure new guns are purchased by those who are stable, responsible and properly trained.

A driver license is viewed as a responsiblity in America. It requires training, eye testing and drive testing. The rules are also actively enforced.
A gun is viewed as a right in America, so you can go in and buy one with no testing.

acapella
acapella's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/09/2008
RE: Properly Trained

Until I read this article http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/mandatory-training-for-ccw/ by an expert named Larry Correia, I too thought that training permit holders was an answer to less "accidents". This guy knows what he's talking about.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Mr. Sussberg - sorry

I missed the part where I said anything about government getting involved. What I meant to articulate is we need to take personal responsibility in educating ourselves on the profile of mass killers and taking personal action in getting involve led when we see people that meet that profile. This may mean calling authorities, talking with parents or school officials. It doesn't mean the we sit passively by while a parent says something like "I've lost him, he's burning himself on his wrists and ankles." At that point someone needs to step in and do something, unlike what happened at Sandy Hook. These people are sick and they act sick. It's called getting involved Mr. Sussberg.

Driving is not a Right protected by the Constitution, owning a gun is not "viewed" as a Right it is a Right.

Larry Sussberg
Larry Sussberg's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/12/2009
PTC Observer

Thanks for the clarification.

So, once we understand the profile of a suspected serial killer, what and how would the system work?

Getting involved is fine...but can you lay out the details?

As a reminder and case in point, in NY, up until the late 70s/early 80s, a family could ask for help (involving governmental police and courts) that could require an evaluation then(with family consent) they (governmental courts),could force an individual to obtain treatment whether they wanted it or not including committing someone to a private or governmental hospital.

Also, if there was no family, someone like you and I, by "getting involved" could call the government and with no family, they could declare that person a ward of the state (government)" and force that person through the same procedures.

All of this forced on someone who claimed he/she did not want help. That was changed because it was deemed a violation of that person's civil liberities. As a result families can no longer act and the government can not be involved, unless you are willing to spend a fortune appealing to government courts where very little action occurs.

So what would you change in a revised system without spending more, without any or limited government involvement and without violating an individual's constitutional rights if no crime was committed?

Thanks
Larry

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Mr. Sussberg - Sorry

I didn't see this earlier.

Well there wouldn't be a "system" other than having laws related to those that "act out" and harm themselves or others. Seems this young fellow was cutting himself before he "acted out" in other tragic ways. It also appears that his mother wasn't particularly interested in seeking help for his unusual behavior. In fact, if you look at all the recent cases there were a number of signs that these people were "acting out" before these attacks.

I certainly acknowledge that there is a trade off between civil liberties and taking action in these cases. I for one would err on the side of liberty.

Life is not without risk but for many reasons I would say that our society is less risky with guns that without them. I would also point out that despite having over 300 million firearms in our society events like Sandy Hook are still rare.

Giving the state the ability to declare that you are mentally ill helps give rise to the political gulag; ref: The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a historic testament of socialist ideals run amok. A gulag forced upon its unharmed citizens by a Godless state, that controlled the Rights to speech, press, assembly, petition, among others.

Holocausts are always written by the survivors, lest we forget both the full horror of them and in the hope that they may never recur. The lessons learned are embodied in our Rights given by God including the Right to self defense.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Larry- I hope there is a solution

but a ban or limit on high cap mags is not one. Law abiding citizens will give theirs up, criminals will not. One of the columbine shooters had only 10 round mags for his pistol. in fact, he had 13 of them. whatdid that change? there was no hurry to reload since no one was shooting back.
increased wait time? the guyin Sandy Hook did not have a permit, or worry about a wait time. He murdered someone and stole the guns from the owner who DID have a permit and went through thte wait time. A national standard for a permit? ignoring that gun laws a re a states right issue according to the constitution itself, there would be a VERY nasty unintended consequence of that that anti gun people would not like. Currently my cocealed carry liscence is good in Ga, and a handful of other states that have reciprocal agreements with Ga. But a national permit would mean I could get a liscence in ga and carry in chicago, D.C., new york,......all the places where they try very hard to not allow concealed permits at all. None of the solutions youve suggested would have changed sandy hook, columbine, aurora or virgina tech. in all those places they were in gun free zones, had plenty of time to stroll around completely unopposed, but were all unstable headcases who fell through the cracks or illegally obtained the weapons they got. Clearly, all these people have no problem violating the law. What use will more laws serve? they are just going to ignore those too. why cant you see that?

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Larry, once we get away from the knee-jerk . . .

. . . assault rifle ban that accomplishes nothing anyway, there is room for rational discussion. But I doubt you will like what I'm going to say.

First, our expectations are way out of line. Life is not risk free even though Americans live under a bubble of plenty and protection and feel that safety is their birthright, along with their entitlement to an easy, self-indulgent life.

But life is full of risks, and one of them is another person going off the deep end and hurting innocent people, even kids, even babies. You will never stop that risk, no matter how high you pile the suffocating regulations and laws.

Of course that does not in any way reduce the heartbreaking sadness about those kids and adults killed in CT.

Second, the people who commit these crimes are already busting existing laws, and more laws won't help.

Third, a culture of casual violence in movies, not to mention lousy parenting, plus inadequate attention to the mentally challenged are factors, and good luck turning that freight train around.

Fourth, imposing a limitation on high capacity magazines, such as 10 rounds max, would be a practical compromise in my personal view, and it might help a little bit over the long term but the key word there is "little." It is nothing more than whistling through the graveyard in my opinion, because nothing short of a radical gun ban and confiscation of existing weapons will do much good at all. And taking the radical step would create a backlash with terrible violence of its own, never mind the 2nd Amendment.

Fifth, taking our schools as just one issue, if I were king I would do 2 things. One, encourage every principal to carefully select several teachers or other staff who can demonstrate firearm proficiency to have a weapon at school, perhaps locked but close at hand. Second, hire retired police officers for security since they know and practice with firearms, and are experienced in dealing with perps.

Those are my views, Larry, and I know folks on the left AND right will disagree. Let's have coffee.

Terry Garlock

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
Taking care of those knees

Knee jerk reaction:
an immediate unthinking emotional reaction produced by an event or statement to which the reacting person is highly sensitive; - in persons with strong feelings on a topic, it may be very predictable.

To my ears, this sounds like the actions of the "no controls over guns" school. On these blogs alone there has been multiple years worth of wear and tear put on the knees of afflicted individuals. Take care of yourself people. The smart money is getting in front of the issue of gun violence and the most basic logic indicates that a little of something is better than a lot of nothing. If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Tgarlock, arm teachers?

Tgarlock, arm teachers? That’s a wonderful idea? The crazy’s don’t even have to bring their own stolen guns to school, they just take by surprise and over power the pistol packing physics teacher and blast away with that gun.

I give you a D minus on the “limitation on high capacity magazines.” At least you put your toe in the water.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Arm teachers?

Yes Gort, we read stories every day about perps jumping and taking firearms away from resource officers to use at school don't we?

I like the idea of teachers that have training and background checks similar to police being allowed to carry. I'd also think that only the principal and resource officer should know who these people are.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
G35 Dude, I can understand

G35 Dude, I can understand why you like the idea of teachers having guns. You say to yourself, “now that teachers have guns, children are now protected,” mission accomplished, end of discussion.

It would work something like this; a killer enters school and starts killing children, a teacher pops up and shoots killer, we bury the dead, tell the rubber necking gawkers to “move along people, nothing to see here”, and then we let the teacher ride on the back of a ‘Billy-goat” at the next 4th of July parade as we all cheer!

The problem is, I don’t see it working out that way every time. I can imagine scenarios where it could actually makes things worst.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
No Gort, you don't understand
Quote:

G35 Dude, I can understand why you like the idea of teachers having guns. You say to yourself, “now that teachers have guns, children are now protected,” mission accomplished, end of discussion.

No Gort. You don't understand. Most people like you do see a chance for something bad to happen under my scenario. And in truth at some point it very well may. You see we don't live in a perfect world. So there are no perfect answers. By supporting the idea of a few armed teachers what I'm advocating is a lesser of the 2 evils. At some point in time there may well be an accident. But the thing we won't know is how many times a mass killer picked another target because he wanted an easy target which is no longer a school.

That is part of the problem when discussing gun control. There will always be stories that support each side. So we have to look at the whole picture. When Kennesaw passed their gun law did all gun violence stop? No. But it sure went down a lot. There are no perfect answers. I wish there were.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
G35 Dude, as I told Renault

G35 Dude, as I told Renault in another post, I have no doubt you want to save innocent lives. Well, so don’t I.

I want regulations put in place at the ‘point of sale’, before these weapons get in the hands of a criminal. If we leave things as they are now, criminals will continue to arm themselves, and innocent people are forced to live under a state of siege.

IMHO, we should choose the battlefield were the enemy is weakest and that’s before they ever get their hands on a weapon.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Gort- I agree that we have to try
Quote:

I want regulations put in place at the ‘point of sale’, before these weapons get in the hands of a criminal.

I don't think we'll ever be able to stop criminals from getting guns. But I do agree that we have to try. Point of sale regulations are a good start. As long as those regulations focus on the criminals. Still that is only one battle in a huge war that is being fought. We can't just stop there. We have to be better prepared for the next time something like this happens and it will.

BTW, I don't doubt your intentions either.

Larry Sussberg
Larry Sussberg's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/12/2009
G35/GORT

What about a simple written psychological test, or as someone here suggested 3 personal references, kept on file.

It won't take current guns out of the hands of criminals or crazies but its a start.

VERITAS' suggestion of a limited number of armed administrators/teachers in every school makes sense too. Instead of policemen at every school (which I think the NRA is pushing), might be cheaper to have properly trained, properly maintained school personnel that local police can oversee, check equipment and keep trained.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Gort, G35 Dude...

Congratulations! Now, if we could only get those we elect to public office to make the same visible progress the two of you have made.
There may be hope for us yet.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
King/Sussberg

There have been a lot of good ideas out here. Gort's suggestion of point of sale regulations has a lot of potential if we're talking things like closing the gun show loophole. I also agree that armed/trained teachers that volunteer and are willing to go through training similar to that of police officers is good also. Simple psychological testing could help too. Plus I'd like to see a re-vamping of our mental health system.

I agree too that it's a shame that our elected leaders are so consumed with political status and/or greed that they can't have these type discussions and come up with some solutions.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Larry, Gort, G35 Dude

You guys are on to something with point of sale restrictions and the mental health aspect. As an advocate of gun owner rights, I freely admit there are those that if they did not own guns legally society would be safer. Owning a firearm and realizing the consequences it conceivably can bring are not fully realized.
Most of us have knowledge of individuals who simply aren't 'adult' enough to handle what I see as the responsibility of owning a weapon. You'll find it most difficult to throw a blanket over the whole issue, but willing to compromise is a start.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Be very careful with restricting POS...

... POS has it's basis in the Constitution. Property in the US can be owned. In many Countries, in fact most Countries, Property belongs to the Government or at the very least you must apply to the Government for that ownership.

Property is not defined as just land it is any thing of value. So Guns are a thing of value and you can own them. Restrictions placed on that Property means you don't really own that property. Government placing restrictions on what you can do with your Property (gun) means Government controls your Property thus it violates the basic tenant of Constitutional freedoms.
Happiness was originally intended to say Property but was changed for fear of the Slave Owners declaring they were given Constitutional authority to hold slaves as property.

Restricting person to person sales of Property ignores 200 years of Contract Law. Once you cross that boundary then any property and I mean any property can then be violated to say you don't really own it.

Now if a State, since the Federal Government really has no jurisdiction, wants to place say conditions on that sale it would then be entirely legal.

Personally I never sale a weapon unless the person has a CCP and have another form of ID.. I scan both onto a Bill of Sale which is then signed. I keep that BOS FOREVER.

Restricting P2P sales is not the purview of the Federal Government but we allow them to to restrict and regulate in areas they have no Constitutional Authority to do so.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
POS laws already exist.

POS laws already exists. If I purchase a gun via the internet I can't have it shipped to my house. It has to go through a FFL licensed dealer. But then I can go to a gun show and purchase one and take it home. That along with P2P sales means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check. Under your argument there is no constitutional right for denying a felon or mentally ill person from owning a gun. Is this what you're advocating?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
G35

I think I said the State may place restrictions.. just not the Federal Government.

If however you restrict my Right to sale to my neighbor then you are trampling on the basic rights of property ownership.

You start down that path and where does it end?

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
We have to choose

I have no problem with you selling your private property as long as the sale goes through an FFL licensed dealer so that a background check can be done.

Quote:

If however you restrict my Right to sale to my neighbor then you are trampling on the basic rights of property ownership.

You start down that path and where does it end?

You see the number one way a criminal gets a gun is through a straw purchase. That is where he buys from a person that could legally purchase the gun to start with. The alternative is more innocent kids/people killed. Which is the lesser of the two evils?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
So to choose means rights have to be abridged...

...What if GE decided with the assistance of Government that you could not sale one of their products unless you went through an "approved" vendor?

Be honest G.. the ONLY way your option works is if EVERY gun is registered those already purchased and those to be purchased. Then when Government decides to "inspect" your "registered" gun to make sure you still own them they will have to enter your home under no suspicion or probable cause but since you allowed the Government to register your gun you would have to allow them entry... Thus you give up your 4th Amendment Rights, as well... Is this where you and Nuk want to go?

AS long as my AR-15 with it's 100 round drum mag is legal I have every right to sell it... bearing in mind I also bear the personal responsibility if I sale it to a felon. If it is used illegally I could be charged not only with a State crime but a Federal one as well. Selling a gun to a felon is ALREADY ILLEGAL. No rule, regulation or law is going to stop a criminal from obtaining a firearm...maybe in 200 years but certainly not in the next 50 years since we have approx 200 years of guns already in the hands of Americans.

So what NEW laws could be added? Forcing me to pay a FEE to a FFL holder to run a background check is logical but it abridges basic contract law and the free ownership of property.

Freedom has it's price.. I am surprised Nuk as a fellow Libertarian you would want added Government Regulations restricting your personal Freedoms... Remember today it's the "Scary" gun tomorrow maybe it might be something you have or like that someone wants to take away or think you don't need. Then will you be just as willing to have Government take away your property?

Will you be ok with cars that can't go over say 45mph, since cars kill more kids then so called "Assault" rifles? I mean if it saves lives it worth it right?

Somehow I think not.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Lindsey-"To choose" is a simple statement

The statement "to choose" means just that. In this case the choice is to protect some alleged rights that may never need to be protected or to protect innocent kids/people. You choose the former, I choose the later. The gun show loophole has to be closed!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Well first G.. There is no such thing as a "Gunshow Loophole"

That is just hype. The so called "loophole" is simply people selling their property to other people. Something that has been happening ever since the Republic claimed it's sovereignty from the King.

First what "alleged" rights do I have? I thought the 2nd was pretty clear.. what part of "shall not be infringed upon" don't you get?

Additionally why does it have to be central control or nihilism.. you claim we can't do one without abridging the rights of some?

If you can tell me how your idea will work without forcing me to "Register" guns already in my possession then we can have a discussion..other then that your willing to force me to give up my 4th Amendment rights for some perceived safety.

Not going to happen.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
My rights aren't abridged at all

I don't hunt trophy bucks with a military knock-off weapon and a 100 round drum. I also don't think I have a "right" to buy a nuke or a few canisters of sarin gas. If someone feels a "need" to defend their lives or home with similar, I could care less. It's not a "right" and never has been.

Unfortunately, we live in a culture where minimizing the damage psychopaths are currently performing on others is more paramount than an alleged right that frankly has never existed to being able to obtain any and all weapons with either minimal or no restriction.

You own something and you feel that means you can sell it to anyone? Try doing that with legal prescriptions to meds you "own" like Adderal, Oxycodone, Vicodin, etc.

I am not in favor of banning so-called "assault weapons" or "high capacity magazines" mainly because I've seen the anti-gun crowd and the Brady idiots along with the media have no idea what they are talking about in regards to either. I AM for making it more "difficult" and "regulating" them more than what is presently in place and I sure as hell don't see that as infringing on anyone's rights.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Don't be a drama queen...

....nobody's asking for Nukes or Sarin gas Nuk. That's already illegal.

btw- selling drugs has been illegal for a while there Nuk... Selling a gun to a legal citizen is not. The comparison is worthless.

I am just saying once you start down the path of allowing Government to regulate that which is legally owned by someone placing "restrictions" on where someone can sell something or to whom then be definition you are allowing Government to infringe on their right to own property. Doing so diminishes your freedoms.

Go ahead Nuk and travel down that path if you so choose...just remember today it's my ability to sell my property/gun tomorrow it may be something you want to do and then what?

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
SL: UGH

Can't really respond to you because the text is now broken up into one word per line gibberish due to the formatting here. Let's take it somewhere else.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Nuk..go here
NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Agreed G35

Close the loopholes already.

I'm a gun owner that also believes that selling people AR-15's with 100 round drums is asinine. What, are you expecting the state of Alabama to suddenly invade Georgia?
Or wait....."my government" is going to attack me and I need to be prepared! That is about the stupidest argument I have ever heard. If the government ever wants to attack its own citizens, your puny weapons that are knock-offs ain't going to help you for very long. Maybe you're waiting for the zombie apocalypse.

Until everyone in the USA figures out how to solve the problem of mentally ill people blowing away masses at a time due to high capacity weapons and their EASY availability, I'm in favor of some common sense reforms. Not confiscation, not banning, but how about some restrictions and increased licensing? The NRA has a chance to either get ahead of the curve or get trampled here by people sick of seeing the slaughter.

Larry Sussberg
Larry Sussberg's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/12/2009
G35 Dude

I agree with looking at mental health... Probably some may consider that an entitlement and no one will want to pay for it.

Also, many states have "dumb" down their laws pertaining to mental health because most people who need claim they don't need the services and the courts are afraid to enforce and/or force treatment on people who claim they don't need it.
In the 70s and 80s there were a number of cases where the courts upheld that forced treatment was a violation of someone's civil/constitutional rights.

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
The decision to arm teachers rests with the State - not the feds

and certainly not the locals. The locals can decide about placement of police officers.

The States that want to can create a concealed carry permit for teachers that would have a strong pre-training requirement that would certainly cover securing your gun, requesting back-up and above all shooting to kill - no point in it otherwise. There is some fingerprint technology that allows only the registered owner/user to fire the gun. Laser sights are good as well as they demonstrate a serious threat to the shooter. I can certainly see where some teachers would opt out and that's fine - it should be strictly voluntary.

Those objecting might want to listen in on Victoria Soto being offered a gun by someone saying "You will have a chance to defend you classroom children sometime soon from a deranged shooter. You want to do it with a gun - after you have been trained OR just take your chances unarmed? Difference might be as many as 10 kids saved". Now what do you think she would say? Or, if you prefer, what would you say and then do if confronted with the same situation that she was? Armed or unarmed? No easy answers are there?

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Mudcat- what you say is true but........

I have been discussing this with the resource officer at my school, who thinks it s afabulous idea BTW, and I think we have a much easier workaround at the county level. No need for state action. Id give details, but I dont want to spoil my chances to by giving the secret away to some anti gun people who think my right to defend myself and others stops at the schoolhouse door.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Gort- in case you think teachers arent armed
Veritas
Veritas's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/23/2010
Teachers with permits

People you do realize that for several years now Georgia teachers have been Legally allowed to keep firearms locked and out of sight in their cars on school property. Albeit not in the school facility themselves.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Veritas- teachers with permits

As a teacher and holder of a valid carry permit, I do realize that. But I dont think an active shooter is going to wait for me to go out to my car, get my gun, and wait to be buzzed back in by the office staff so I can shoot the bad guy. So, that really gets us nothing. I would feel much better about having a fingerprint safe bolted inside one of my cabinets with a loaded pistol inside. I dont need to carry it with me everywhere I go. Even concealed, it would be too easy to tell which teachers had them and which ones didnt. That would defreat the purpose. The safes are about the size of a lunchbox and can be coded for dozens of fingerprints and has a key lock also. The resource officer and the Admin could all be coded for the safe, in addition to the teacher its for. Sound reasonable?

Veritas
Veritas's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/23/2010
Renault my point

Renault , you missed the point. I was just stating a fact that Georgia has stepped a small step towards better security. Hence I used “ Albeit…..” A weapon in the car is much better than none available at all. Not the ideal situation for such a scenario but better than the alternative. There have been several well documented cases of administrators , teacher and individuals being able to get to their car and back to bring such instances to a halt. I do agree with you in that, I also being well versed in the tactical use of firearms and a permit holder, would like to have immediate physical availability of a firearm while in the building. I just wanted those to remember all the horror scenarios put out by the anti-gun crowd when that law passed as to how there would be mass automobile break ins on the school grounds , hoodlums stealing the weapons and running rampant on the schools. To date no such instances have occurred. ( Thank God) I believe a select few highly trained and skilled staff should be armed. Not all just the trained few.

Larry Sussberg
Larry Sussberg's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/12/2009
Veritas

Great suggestion.....keeps down the number of guns in a school to a few, always available and highly trained. 2 to 3 at any given time on any given day as long as there are children in a building.

Sad that these things have to even be considered
.

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
Larry, one reason to own that speaks to our national history

Larry, You state "There is no reason for anyone to own an assault weapon". There is one reason alone that I can see that stands our national history test. Thomas Jefferson said the following: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." We can all discount that as a reason but the founders of the country were very afraid of a tyrannical central government. That is why they set up all of the checks and balances that they did. They would be aghast at the consolidation of power that the federal government has amassed in a 100 years of jurisprudence and the threat of court packing. Since the government is armed with assault weapons and much greater firepower, there could be a compelling argument that these weapons are an important check against tyrannical governance. That is how I read history and I am writing this without owning any of these weapons. Please correct me where I am wrong. thanks

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
WEDGE
Quote:

Since the government is armed with assault weapons and much greater firepower, there could be a compelling argument that these weapons are an important check against tyrannical governance.

Is there a group in the United States that can take on the tanks, missiles, etc. of our government? What will your assault weapon do against such? Our vote or lack of votes has put the existing 'leaders' in power. The vote is our weapon IMO. . . .and it has been bought/manipulated for/by special interest. I think we're on the road to taking the power of the citizen back. That will include liberal and conservative citizens - and possibly all independent of 'political parties'.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Wedge you are NOT wrong...

...the 2nd has NOTHING to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with the population being able to stand against the Government if needed.

Thomas Jefferson also wrote: "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

With Drones flying overhead..Kill List of Americans.. The abuse of the Law by the Justice Dept..et al. It doesn't take too much of an stretch of the imagination that at some point in the future we might need that option.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
SLindsey, are you saying its

SLindsey, are you saying its okay for the slaughter of school children to continue so you can indulge your wild eyed fantasy of over throwing the government?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Wow Gort nice angle of attack...

...what was it 180 degrees or something... No what I am saying is the Constitution is more important then your feelings.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
SLindsey, it wasn’t meant as

SLindsey, it wasn’t meant as an attack. Just, “putting the moose on the table,” as some people like to say.

On Friday the NRA is supposed to make a press release on the Newton massacre. We’ll see if they’re interested in meaningful reforms, to reduce gun violence, or just more of their BS gibberish.

Personally, I think it’s in the long term interest of weapons manufactures, (and their shills at the NRA,) to support meaningful reforms. But that’s just me speaking.

If the momentum of outrage, that people feel now, can be sustained, I’m hopeful something positive will come of this tragedy.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
So what "meaningful" reforms do you suggest?

You can't build out crazy nor legislate morality so exactly what do you want the Gun Manufactures to do?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
SLindsey, this is my

SLindsey, this is my contribution to the debate on another post I made on “The Citizen.”

Quote:

This is what I said:

Make military-style semi-automatic assault weapons along with high-capacity ammunition magazines, less readily available to the general public.

Improve background checks and close loopholes including all sales by unlicensed sellers.

Enact laws to help law enforcement combat firearms trafficking that supplies guns to criminals.

Use microstamping that can match bullet casings found at a crime scene to the gun used.

All this can take place and I wouldn’t have to worry about anyone taking my guns away.

What weapons manufactures have to consider is, the mood of the public could make things even harder for them, if they don’t appear to want to help reduce gun violence.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Gort- Sandy Hook shooter used pistols

the mood of the public is being completely swayed by lies and misinformation. Its still being trumpeted accross the airwaves that the Sandy Hook shooter used an assault rifle, hence the trumped up outrage against assault rifles. But he did not. he used pistols. The assault rifle was found in the trunk of his car. However, the Libs and the media they control know that you cannot ban handguns, due to a recent SCOTUS decision, so they are demonizing assault rifles instead, something they think they might be able to ban. Its not about saftey, or common sense, it is their disarmament agenda. Plain and simple. Unless you can come up with a different explination as to why they keep lying and saying an assault rifle was used.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Renault, early news reports

Renault, early news reports did say semi-automatic pistols were used but as the investigation progressed, it was later revealed, the killer did in fact use the Bushmaster. At least that's what I read.

Here you go. I “Goggled” this link for you to read about the weapon used. It also has a paragraph about product liability you might find interesting.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/19/bushmaster-223-weapon-used-in-newtow...

Don’t feel too bad, you just missed hearing about the updated information. Now you know how Susan Rice must have felt, eh?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
An example of incorrect media reports
Quote:

Its still being trumpeted accross the airwaves that the Sandy Hook shooter used an assault rifle, hence the trumped up outrage against assault rifles. But he did not. he used pistols. The assault rifle was found in the trunk of his car.

The medical examiner reported that the carnage perpetrated on the victims was done by the RIFLE. I too saw the police looking at the car - and heard the report that the rifle was retrieved from the car. I think the medical examiner had the facts, So who controls the media? Certainly not the journalists of the old days who wait to report the validated truth. Sad.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Mark Twain said it best!
Quote:

So who controls the media?

Nobody. In my mind it's just as likely that the media decided to report the involvement of the rifle to further their agenda. Be it true or not. Mark Twain's words about the media was never truer than today. He said:" The man that does not read the newspaper is uninformed. But the man that does read the paper is misinformed."

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
renault314 - Pistols only

Provide your source for this assertion, a link please.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Not necessarily Gort

The "Mood/Feelings" are not what the Media is portraying them to be. Currently the Media is promoting that even NRA members across the Country want "something" done meaning bans of some type. Actually that couldn't be further from the truth.

Most do NOT want bans and will not support them. The Media is hyping the story for sensational value not journalistic integrity.

Beside before any meaningful bans can even be put in place everyone that wants one will already have one... so what good will it do?

Oh btw that thing about not allowing private sales is enshrined in Contract law and would not be enforceable. Once you own an item the Government can not stop you from selling that item... if they could then you don't really own property and that my friend would be unconstitutional since we have the Right to own property so.....

Besides Gort the Federal Government has no Constitutional right to regulate Guns. So there is that to....

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
SLindsey, you can dismiss the

SLindsey, you can dismiss the mood of the public and government’s authority to regulate arms sales, if you want to but I think you’re deluding yourself.

If the NRA comes out fighting on Friday, I think the public is ready to fight back.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Gort I think you will be proved wrong...

...The Mid-West/South and the East Coast is being kept out of the "surveys" and they will fight to keep their guns and their Rights just as they are.

SO go ahead Gort think America is changing towards that Social Utopia you guys want... It isn't happening in my or your life time.

Recent Comments