They are the only ones who have rights ex, just ask them.
|
They are the only ones who have rights ex, just ask them.
Neither does your use of this argument while telling us you're going to limit our 2nd amendment rights. Seems we haven't denied the paper's right to do it,Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Damn phones...Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
They have the right, but that doesn't make it right. I doubt those folks knew this could happen. You apparently think they deserved it.
On the contrary ;I used my 1st amendment right to protest ,and am using whatever economic power of persuasion my patronage has to influence their policies . Evidently there were enough similar minded people in my section of blue NY to make a difference .Quote:
Seems we haven't denied the paper's right to do it,
Hello again, Steve:
Like we limit your right to drink. We DON'T let children drink. You can't be drunk in public. You can't DRIVE and drink. You can't drink in a car. We prosecute bartenders who overserve people...Quote:
limit our 2nd amendment rights.
NONE of that infringes on YOUR right to drink.
We're going to close the gun show loophole. We're going to make background checks that work. We're going to eliminate LARGE, HUGE, HUMONGOUS magazines.
None of that infringes on your right to protect your family, go hunting, or collect as many guns as you wish.. You can even use 'em to defend yourself against the US Army if you have a penchant for doing so.
Excon
PS> Anytime you wind up on a government list, the list is liable to be published. If you don't want to BE on that list, you could have bought your guns at a gun show, and NOT be on ANY list at all.. My guess is that there's TWICE as many guns in that community than there are on any list... Those people are the smart ones.. Do I think dumb people deserve what happens to dumb people? Uhhh, yup.
1. Everyone is making decisions on high emotions=bad decisions
2. Need to focus on re-establishing the family and moral education, most are not given good examples of this at home.
3. Assault weapons in most of these mass killings weren't even used. Were talking about banning weapons that weren't used. Does that make sense?
4. Getting tougher on guns equals more tax payer money wasted. I will guaruntee that it will not prevent one more event like this, not one more. It's pie in the sky. If you can prevent someone from thinking about doing this, then its less likely to happen. Someone will find a weapon if they want, strict gun control or not.
5. I don't have to worry about this in my kid's school because I know every parent is doing their job in teaching moral education. Yes we have "bad" kids to but Im not worried for one second that something like this will happen. Yes my kids school is very small and dam glad of it.
Excon, I love your last sentence on dumb people. LOL. Aren't we all dumb?
You have to start somewhere so you ban the weapons with the most killing power but I agree with you, semi automatic hand guns are just as dangerous and the ban should extend to them. What you really have to do is ban certain classes of people from possessing weapons, but changing the Constitution might be a bridge too far, so you ban certain classes of weapons to minimise the damage or you become radical and ban the manufacture or importation of these weaponsQuote:
Originally Posted by bigwig
So Americans are dumb. I knew that's what you libs thought, hence your neverending quest to nanny us. What gets me is you can't recognize your own contradictory stances. Nanny for me but not for thee.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I don't want or need your stinkin' nannies.
He didn't say Americans were dumb, and he seems to speak for himself, as he always does, but again you put words in his mouth and accuse everyone else of putting words in yours. You do it and cry foul when you THINK we are doing it.
You don't need a nanny, don't get one, but don't be mad at anyone who needs one. And don't try to muddy the waters by saying rules and boundaries take away your rights, or that we don't need a social safety net. Makes me think you are against rules to identify, prosecute, and protect the public from criminals, and seriously deranged people who kill a bunch of people.
That's the issue at hand and what's your solution?
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
My solution is to keep things reasonable. But by your posts my ideas seem totally unreasonable. Is there ever going to be a middle ground to this issue or is it always going to ride on emotions ?
I thought it was interesting that there were anti-gun control rallies yesterday and also accidental shootings at gun shows in North Carolina, Indiana, and Ohio that left five people hurt.
Hello again, Steve:
No, I didn't say Americans were dumb..
But, let me ask you this.. You don't LIKE the government.. I'm SURE you don't want to be ON any list that the government keeps. (I'm making this up about you. Feel free to stop me if you LOVE the government... ) And, if you FELT that way, and had a CHOICE between buying your gun at a shop where you WOULD be on a list, or buying your gun from a show where you WOULDN'T be on a list, the place to buy your gun would be obvious... NEITHER of those two methods of obtaining a gun are ILLEGAL, of course..
Therefore, to ME, and I guess ONLY to me, the ones who buy their guns from gun SHOWS are the smart ones... I should have put that way in the first place, because it's not NICE to call dumb people, dumb.
excon
Accidents happen. And some people just don't get that. Notice what they didn't say about it is that no one died. A very important factor when your talking about guns. From what was invetigated they were accidents and charges at this time have not been filed against anyone. From what I read about it they were stupid at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
The reports did say no deaths. So, gun owners can be stupid?Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
LOL, isn't gun safety the issue in light of the possibility of accident will happen? And I don't entirely disagree with you calidad, on all your positions, just some of them which you and everyone else can count on me not being shy about my disagreement.
Yep and so can do it yourself home repairers with a nail gun. Around here every weekend the hospitals have at least a couple admittances for " bagel palms" (BRI bagel-related injury)Quote:
The reports did say no deaths. So, gun owners can be stupid?
So what do we do about the innocent victims of bad behavior? The deaths that are NOT accidents. How can we prevent the accidents that have happened?
Doing nothing is the path for more accidents and tragedies.
We can start by doing the job that is already tasked on the books. If these weren't committed by criminals then there would be a solution. The problem is they are not. We have regulated responsibility already for gun ownership. People are being punished for being irresponsible - like leaving a loaded firearm where children have access to it. Heck we even have millions of illegal people in this country. How is it that stacking more laws on a problem seems to solve the problem. That is not what it is about. It is about enforcement of existing law and compliance. That along with education could cause a dramatic decrease in unwanted events. But like has happened many times in our media we blame the object and not the objectioner for the offense. We need to stop that. The demonizing of guns and what goes along with it like ROTC programs in schools just masks the real problem. It is time to take a hard look and see what shakes out in a rational manner and not seep it in emotion. I don't see the calling for the banning of cars yet more people are killed by them then any gun. Where is the sensibility on society ?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
What would have been the solution in the Adam Lanza case? (based on what we know so far) Or the Columbine case?
Mental health advisories for both situations. How often is a crime committed and we think to ourselves this is nuts? There needs to be more proactive parts being played by the mental health community then what there is now to identify problems before they break out into situations like we have seen in the news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
But Adam's mom had dealt with the mental health people. Stories are floating around that she didn't like the choices they offered. She even took him out of school and was homeschooling him and allowing him to spend hours in his bedroom with video games. Mental health can't do anything unless he is a danger to himself or others, and even then it's touchy, because the patient has rights. (I'm looking forward to hearing the official details about this case.) And the Columbine shooters were being bullied, it is claimed, and supposedly that had been addressed. The community had been proactive, and it can do only so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
So if the community cannot deal with the threat posed by the mentaly ill because of their rights then you have to have balance in removing the means for them to kill.
While we Pussiefoot arount the issues of rights more people die
http://www.news.com.au/world/teen-sh...-1226557855606
Now we don't know the detailed circumstances yet but once again we have an "assault rifle" in the picture and guns do kill people, they just need a little assistance
I totally agree with this but the only way I see it working is more local, and federal cops with the proper training and tools to actually address the enforcement and compliance issues. And as front loaded investment of social workers counsellors. Bottom line is the money to make that happen.Quote:
That is not what it is about. It is about enforcement of existing law and compliance. That along with education could cause a dramatic decrease in unwanted events
While I agree, but I see a right to privacy issues, doctor client privileges, and getting people to even seek a doctors help, knowing they could be reported as major stumbling block. Its truly a many layered complex issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Mental health advisories for both situations. How often is a crime committed and we think to ourselves this is nuts? There needs to be more proactive parts being played by the mental health community then what there is now to identify problems before they break out into situations like we have seen in the news.
Then there is the criminals who kill on a daily basis, and unlike crazy people snapping, and they too may be crazy, they seem to get their hands on anything they want, mostly because of loopholes they exploit, and the criminals by ordinary citizens that aid and abet them for personal profit.
Its this reason I think more cops with more tools, like a national database for firearms period, no exceptions, is needed. I will always be against the citizen, no matter how responsible, be on the same level of fire power as the cops, or national guard.
Tal the problem with all of this is culture, the idea that it is okay to have weapons in the home, the idea that society is so weak you have to protect yourself, the idea that you must take affirmative action. Society has gone from relatively isolated dwellings to close urban living but hasn't changed its ideas
Ok, then lets try to break this down. Fully understanding that laws have been put in place such as HIPPA and others to protect the privacy as well as the doctor/patient relationship.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
So how about a waiting period for those that wish to buy guns that are under a doctors care and are perscribed drugs from certain classes of medication. That way if there is at least a question on a persons mental status the doctor can sign off on it. Yes it would be a hassle but it can also act as a safegaurd. That way it doesn't interfere with the operations of others that wish to purchase a firearm.
As far as your second part and this circuler argument that you keep coming to. I believe it is because you don't actually know what your talking about. So Im going to try to explain it to you. There is this thinking in the general public that you can buy anything you want. The actual truth is there are lines that have been drawn as far as what can be bought and sold. It is highly controlled and regulated already. Law enforcement and the national guard are still miles ahead of average joe citizen. Mainly due to the fact they they -entities like police and military. Can and do possess fully automatic weapons. The general public has a great restriction on getting their hands on those types of weapons. They ALL are registered in a national database and fees as well as taxes have been paid to own one. They are not readily available nor are they cheap by any means. The AR in fully automatic will set you back about 25 thousand dollars. So really it has nothing to do with being on par with military nor police.
Weapons are divided into different classes the least of which are airsoft weapons. AKA like bb guns or paintball guns. Next you have the cener fire weapons of single shot to semiauto. From there is full auto. The higher up you go the more regulation there is.
Most weapons used in crimes are those that are from straw purchases. That would be a "legal" person that can past muster of the law buying it then in turn selling to a person that can not purchase a gun legally.
Huge differences here. Also you can't just go buy a full auto weapon nor a supressor at your whim. You have to apply for it and it has to be signed off and approved by your local LEO's. The process can take about 6 months.
Then what about the teens who maybe find out where their dads hid the key to the gun safe (if he was indeed that careful) and take one or more guns and ammo to school and/or shoot up a school? There was a case the other day of an everyday, normal 13-year-old who brought a handgun and ammo (and knife) to school and was showing them off and handing them around on the playground.
Dad it is nice to know there is regulation but it doesn't prevent a large number of killings so there is something not working. This is what has to be addressed. There are ways of addressing it from more regulation to removing classes of weapon from the community.
From personal experience I know that the only way to prevent a person who isn't thinking straight from using a gun to solve whatever problem they have is to ensure that they cannot get access to a gun. My son is still alive today because he could not get access to a gun and when he did steal from a neighbour he couldn't get ammunition.
It is that simple but there is all this emotional crap about rights to wade through
I would have to know more about it to comment on it. Its obvious that you can't stop nor prevent every concievble situation. It as also apparent by what your saying that the child didn't have a clue to what was going on. Im not sure if that was the child's mental capacity to grasp reality or something that originated in the parents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I gathered that he just wanted to show off, as teen boys so often like to do. Meanwhile, Sandy Hook was much in the news.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Adam Lanza and other teen killers have had ready access to guns at home. Parenting problem?
Possible. Right now we don't really know except what spin is being put on it. Sometimes parent have very difficult situations to deal with on the homefront. I know some parents that had to give up a child because they couldn't control him. It wasn't easy. And if in this case the mother was aware that things were getting out of hand then she could have had the weapons stored elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
We don't know enough at this time to pass such a judgement. But a danger no matter what the direction it comes from as a parent you must always be diligent.
Dad platitudes like diligent don't cut it where firearms are concerned. Kids are resourcefull, when they decide to do things they are sometimes irrational, to keep firearms out of their hands requires very stringent measures and even then they don't succeed. It is therefore better to ensure only essential weapons are in the community. Sporting shooter's don't need weapons at home they can store them at a shooters' club or armory, All weapons should be stored in a secure safe and ammunition separately secured but reality suggests that there needs to be a real examination of why gun ownership is necessary at all
Clete
It's obvious your stance on guns and I respect the situation your in with your son. If my neighbor politely asked me about how I store my guns because he had a son/daughter that he was concerned about finding them I would absolutely respect that and do something about it.
As for me having to go to some club or gun armory to pick up my shot gun to go pheasant hunting. C'mon man you know that isn't realistic or necessary or ever going to happen. Clete are you a U.S. citizen?
Those who have been around for a while know that I reside far away but have been contributing to these forums for many years.
As to what is necessary in your particular environment only you can know but I'm sure the residents of Newtown didn't think it necessary to keep weapons out of the hands of Adam because it might have been inconvenient. I am not niaive enough to think that because something happens in one place, that is isolated and cannot happen elsewhere. These days we are all much more closely connected than we think, events echo and have repercussions even in remote places
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Clete,
I'll turn my guns into an armory when you turn in your right to fly in an airplane.
No one ever discussed banning airplanes after 9/11.
In the spirit of finding a middle ground. I totally agree on enforcing gun control and gun safety. Middle ground to me isn't the ability to check my gun out from an armory like it was a gun library of some sort. Not sure if that's what you were getting at but it kind of sounded like it. I would move to whatever country you live in before that happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigwig
Hi bigwig
That probably wouldn't work for you because we live in a country where there is no right to bear arms.
No Tutty that would not work for me. The point I was trying to make is the 2nd amendment means that much to me. I would at all costs avoid what has happened where you live from happening here because there is surely more hell to come if that would happen here. It's a broken system when a govt doesn't trust it's citizens to bear arms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
I have viewed the many videos you guys have provide about the differences between semi, and fully automatic. It seems our disagreement is where the line should be drawn between heavy regulation and less regulations, and completely banning certain weapons. Your distinctions are technical and law enforcement facing semi automatic fire won't draw a technical distinction when he is hit. That's not a position I would want a cop in, or the swat guys and especially not a citizen to have to face.
As far as I am concerned and this is my own opinion,I see no pratical function for such weapons by any citizen. Now I have pointed out the difference between rural areas, and cities, and semi automatic rifles has no place in the city period.
David Koerech was a licenced dealer, or his cult members were, and its hard to make a case for him being a reasonable law abiding citizen.
However, the idea of bringing doctors into the background check process before any purchase or licencing is a good one, but only covers those who have docors and been evaluated. Leaves a big loophole to drive through. Maybe we should all be evaluated young and needs addressed early, not just the obvious ones.
Yes I would also love to see what facts they find about Adam Lanza.
Please elaborate the hell that would come without your semi automatic rifles and 60shot clips?Quote:
I would at all costs avoid what has happened where you live from happening here because there is surely more hell to come if that would happen here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigwig
Hi again bw
Yes, no doubt it means a lot to the majority of the population over there.
It works for us because our population was never armed in the first place. Therefore it is difficult to take away something that the over whelming majority of the population never had in the first place. According to wikipedia gun ownership in Australia is about 5.2 percent.
No doubt some of the 5.2 percent would disagree with the current restrictions.
If I lived in the far boonies and my nearest neighbor was a mile away, and the nearest town even further, I would want the best weapon money could buy for hunting ad security, and enough bullets for a tribe of squaters, poachers, and ner do wells with bad intentions.
But in a city? NO WAY.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:25 PM. |