|
Post by berty on Dec 4, 2015 4:27:19 GMT
"...all are, despite your repeated protestations, 100% FOR confiscation and outright banning of guns..."
We don't have to ban all guns, how about just the ones that hold enough bullets to spray a room full of people in 20 seconds? People could hunt, shoot targets, etc with a regular, old fashioned type guns. Why do they need one that has more power than what a law enforcement officer carries? I think this would be a great way to compromise between those who are for and those who are against gun control measures. Yes, it wouldn't stop people from killing others with guns, but maybe it could at least lower the number of people who are victims; and it seems like a sensible place to start.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 6:19:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2015 13:54:49 GMT
I hope they give more details. I don't know if they ever clarified the status of the guns from the UCC shooting. They only reported that the guns had been purchased legally, by the shooter and some family members. I think it would be helpful to see the specifics of the where actual fire arms are coming from to have a discussion about what's not working. In the UCC case, they never even stated if any of the guns used versus at the shooters home had been purchased by him versus other family members. Access to legally purchased guns by others appears to be a huge issue, and tightening who is buying the guns won't help one iota if a potential shooter isn't the one buying. You are right, Darcy. That's a "problem". But the only way to "fix" said problem, is to remove guns from the hands of every single law abiding citizen, is it not? There is simply no other way to prevent that problem. We could make it law that it is illegal to use a gun that is owned by someone else. But what good will that do? It will not stop anyone, will it? A law is only as good as the paper its written on - people who break laws don't care what the law says, do they?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 6:19:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2015 14:16:48 GMT
"...all are, despite your repeated protestations, 100% FOR confiscation and outright banning of guns..." We don't have to ban all guns, how about just the ones that hold enough bullets to spray a room full of people in 20 seconds? People could hunt, shoot targets, etc with a regular, old fashioned type guns. Why do they need one that has more power than what a law enforcement officer carries? I think this would be a great way to compromise between those who are for and those who are against gun control measures. Yes, it wouldn't stop people from killing others with guns, but maybe it could at least lower the number of people who are victims; and it seems like a sensible place to start. Those guns are already illegal in california. California legal rifles have to have fixed magazines that hold no more than 10 rounds, and a "bullet button". A bullet button means that in order to drop the magazine from the rifle, the shooter has to use the tip of a bullet, or some other small object, to push a recessed button. Of course the goal is to prevent someone from being able to quickly reload the gun. All other AR's have just a standard button that drops the mag with the push of a finger or thumb. Side note...everytime a law is passed, someone finds a way legally around it. After this bullet button law passed, shooters started modifying shooting gloves to incorporate a bullet tip in the finger, allowing them to drop the mags without having to stop, pickup a bullet, and push the button. But, since these two people were not really into following the law, they either modified the weapons to bypass the bullet button (not hard to do for someone with a little knowledge and some tools, but totally illegal to do it) or they got their hands on weapons that were grandfathered in before the law took effect, or they got them from someone who bought them outside CA and then brought them into the state illegally. Now, if they took possession of rifles that were purchased legally by another, they were required to fill out paperwork with the state, as CA registers these types of weapons. They did not do this. The rifles are also outfitted with illegal accessories - collapsing stocks, pistol grips, front end grips, flash hiders, bayonet lugs to name a few. So how many laws can we count that they willfully broke? Why do we think they would not have broken even more?
So that leads right to Krazy's allusion to the fact that we need "federal" laws in stead of "piece meal" laws. Well, we already have federal laws. Background checks are mandatory. Automatic weapons are illegal to manufacture, and highly regulated and expensive to purchase existing weapons. There are strict laws governing every aspect of gun purchases and ownerships on the federal level. But ultimately, what CA thinks works for its "common sense" measures would be totally and completely wrong for TX, ND, WY, etc. We are a nation of STATES, each one supposed to be sovereign. That's why the nitty gritty laws are supposed to be the laws closest to the people of that state. Not a one size fits all solution. BTW - there is NO such thing as a "gun show loophole" or an online sales loophole. None. You say that your solution "wouldn't stop people from killing others, but it might lower the number of victims." Well, how many innocent victims is acceptable to you? To me, and to every other gun owner in this country, right up to and including Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, the acceptable number is ZERO. From Obama on down, I've heard this mantra over and over again - we need to "reduce" the number of victims. That is such a twisted way of thinking! The best way to reduce the number of innocent victims down to ZERO is to eliminate "gun free zones", stop making people sitting ducks and fish in a barrel, allow citizens to carry their guns everywhere. There is a reason why these maniacs ALWAYS choose a soft target. Why they never ever shoot up gun stores or gun shows or NRA conventions, or why these things don't often happen somewhere were concealed carry is legal AND prevelant - because they KNOW they will not be stopped before they inflict the most damage they possibly can when they are in a gun free zone. They KNOW they can kill countless people and then have time to attempt an escape, or kill themselves, before the cops arrive. As to your question about why we can "have more power than what law enforcement officers carry" - because the 2nd amendment is not about hunting or target shooting. It is absolutely about keeping the citizens on an even playing field with their government, lest the government grow to tyrannical. That does not make me an extremist, nor is it advocating anarchy. It does make me an informed citizen who understands my rights as given by God and guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. I also understand human nature, and historically all governments become tyrannies eventually because of human nature. The 2nd A also guarantees our right to protect ourselves. Our founders knew it was not the governments job to protect us, it was our job alone.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Dec 4, 2015 15:06:17 GMT
Until we get to the mental health issue, screaming gun control isn't going to change things. California had the bans in place. Didn't stop them. Same in Chicago, same in Paris. Gun bans aren't going to stop mass violence. It's cause and effect. I'd prefer to focus on the cause, not the effect (means). The ATF has confirmed that the guns were purchased legally, but not details released yet on where the guns were purchased (i.e. out of state) or how they ended up in the hands of the killers. www.cbsnews.com/news/san-bernardino-shooting-atf-says-all-4-guns-bought-legally/I don't know what your personal stance is on guns or mental health and how we provide it, so this is a general comment. I feel that some people often cite mental health to deflect from the issue of guns, but they don't really care about funding or programs for mental health; it's just a convenient talking point. I agree with you, it has become a convenient talking point. However I fully support increased mental health funding. I think it is essential in this battle. I've also been a big proponent of the Portugal model for drug decriminalization. However unfortunately both the prison system and mental health facilities are highly privatized and therefore require profitability to remain open, and that leads down a very slippery slope. But to me the guns are the means to an end...an end that will come regardless of the weapon used.
|
|
|
Post by mzza111 on Dec 4, 2015 15:17:48 GMT
Lynlam Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Dec 4, 2015 15:27:04 GMT
I hope they give more details. I don't know if they ever clarified the status of the guns from the UCC shooting. They only reported that the guns had been purchased legally, by the shooter and some family members. I think it would be helpful to see the specifics of the where actual fire arms are coming from to have a discussion about what's not working. In the UCC case, they never even stated if any of the guns used versus at the shooters home had been purchased by him versus other family members. Access to legally purchased guns by others appears to be a huge issue, and tightening who is buying the guns won't help one iota if a potential shooter isn't the one buying. You are right, Darcy. That's a "problem". But the only way to "fix" said problem, is to remove guns from the hands of every single law abiding citizen, is it not? There is simply no other way to prevent that problem. We could make it law that it is illegal to use a gun that is owned by someone else. But what good will that do? It will not stop anyone, will it? A law is only as good as the paper its written on - people who break laws don't care what the law says, do they? I don't agree that is the only fix. Tighten federal laws and prosecution of straw man purchases. Look at closing loop holes of background checks through private sales and gun shows. Right now there's a huge discrepancy of laws and prosecution between states as the federal statutes are non-existent or not enforced. I'd also like to better understand how many of these instances or due to family members with high powered rifles that are unsecured. With rights come responsibilities, if you're not ensuring your mentally unstable adolescent doesn't have access to your high magazine, semi-automatic rifle - you should be prosecuted. Is this going to stop all gun deaths - of course not. The reality is almost 2/3 of the gun deaths are SUICIDES. But that doesn't mean that the choices are do nothing or confiscate all guns.
|
|
|
Post by beebee on Dec 4, 2015 16:12:47 GMT
Until we get to the mental health issue, screaming gun control isn't going to change things. California had the bans in place. Didn't stop them. Same in Chicago, same in Paris. Gun bans aren't going to stop mass violence. It's cause and effect. I'd prefer to focus on the cause, not the effect (means). Yes!!!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 6:19:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2015 16:39:26 GMT
You are right, Darcy. That's a "problem". But the only way to "fix" said problem, is to remove guns from the hands of every single law abiding citizen, is it not? There is simply no other way to prevent that problem. We could make it law that it is illegal to use a gun that is owned by someone else. But what good will that do? It will not stop anyone, will it? A law is only as good as the paper its written on - people who break laws don't care what the law says, do they? I don't agree that is the only fix. Tighten federal laws and prosecution of straw man purchases. Look at closing loop holes of background checks through private sales and gun shows. Right now there's a huge discrepancy of laws and prosecution between states as the federal statutes are non-existent or not enforced. I'd also like to better understand how many of these instances or due to family members with high powered rifles that are unsecured. With rights come responsibilities, if you're not ensuring your mentally unstable adolescent doesn't have access to your high magazine, semi-automatic rifle - you should be prosecuted. Is this going to stop all gun deaths - of course not. The reality is almost 2/3 of the gun deaths are SUICIDES. But that doesn't mean that the choices are do nothing or confiscate all guns. California already has "closed the gun show loophole". Every purchase made at a gun show must go through a background check already. The same is true for all private sales in CA. If I want to sell my gun to my brother, and we both live in CA, I must take it to an FFL and he must have check run on him. But none of these measures has stopped a single incident of someone using a gun illegally. I'd also like to take exception to your description of these being "high powered rifles". They are no such things. A .556 is a caliber commonly used for killing small animals like ground hogs, prairie dogs and coyotes. In most states, its not even legal to use a .556 to hunt deer, as it's just not effective on game that size. "High Powered Rifle" is just another cooked up term, like "assault weapon", that has absolutely no meaning, other than to scare the uniformed. (not calling you uniformed, just a broad statement.) And yes, you are right - that with rights come responsibilities. But my responsibilities end when someone else steals my weapon. Of course all gun owners believe that their mentally ill relatives should not have access to their weapons. But we also all know that hindsight is 20/20. We also know that people are often mentally unstable before their family members even realize the extent of their illness. We also know that mistakes happen, and we also know that if someone wants to get a hold a gun, they will figure out how to do it. If someone - family member or not - steals my weapon from my house...meaning the take it without my permission...no, I should NOT be prosecuted, any more than I would be if my drunk son stole my car and plowed through a group of people. The stealing of the weapon from MY house is a crime committed against me. It doesn't matter if it was in a safe, a closet, or laying on the kitchen table. It was in my locked house, therefore it was as secure. You are right, there are other choices...but more laws restricting any legal possession, or prosecution of gun owners/maufacturers/sellers for illegal things other people do with legal weapons is NOT a viable choice. Eliminating gun free zones is a great place to start.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 6:19:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2015 16:41:01 GMT
Ah @lynlam where to start.....
Yes CA has strict gun laws. But , now pay attention here @lynlam, the states surrounding CA do not. And, again pay attention here @lynlam, people can freely go between states without the California Highway Patrol checking every car, motor home, truck/trailer or motorcycle for guns. Do you understand what that means @lynlam? That means that some fool can buy a gun that is illegal in CA but legal in Nevada and bring it into the state and know one knows until it's used to kill people. Do I need to repeat it or do you understand what I just said and what it means?
Now let's talk about your constant yapping that background checks are mandatory. That is not true and you know it. There are loopholes in required background checks so big I could drive a big rig through it without coming close to touching the sides of said loophole. Yes background checks are required if a gun is purchased in a retail business. However, depending on the various state laws, background checks may or may not be required for private gun sales or gun show gun sales. I read somewhere it is estimated that up to 40% of gun sales are done without background checks. And yes @lynlam there is a gun show loophole. It exsists no matter how many times you try and say it doesn't.
As to your comments about what CA thinks as "common sense" laws would not work in other states is just plain bullshit. There are certain laws that apply to ALL states. Like it's illegal to kill someone or steal someone's belongings, or swindle someone out of all their money. It's time laws governing guns should be the same in all states.
I have to say when I read the crap about what you and your buddies at the NRA considered as acceptable collateral damage for your 2nd amendment rights I didn't if I should laugh or cry. If only that was true that you and the NRA felt that the acceptable number of innocent deaths is ZERO. Who are you trying to kid? It became exceeding clear after Sandy Hook that was not a true statement and nothing the NRA has done since says otherwise.
That must really bug people like you that you and your guns aren't welcome in a particular area. Get rid of gun free zones because they are "soft" targets for crazies. Where do you live? A crazy or terrorist doesn't need a gun free zone to hit "soft" targets. Soft targets are our schools, our churches, our movie theaters, our amusement parks, our shopping centers, our mass transit hubs. And they are easier to find then a gun free zone. You are so twisted when it comes to guns that you can't see how sad it is that folks feel the need to create "gun free" zones.
Ok now you have gone off the deep end with all this crap on why crazies/terrorists wouldn't attack an NRA convention. Because they KNOW the NRA folks can kill countless people. Really? Have these mysterious people had a lot of experience in killing people? Unless these folks with their guns have been "tested" know one knows how they will react. For all we know when these macho men and women with their big ass guns are face to face with a crazy/terrorist with a BIGGER gun who are willing and expecting to die these macho men or women could run away screaming.
I'm old enough to say that back in the day when I was going to school we were taught the correct and accepted for 200 years interpretation of the 2nd amendment. That it was only the militia that had the right to bear arms. The reason was simple because at that time there was no standing army but a volunteer militia and what government there was at the time did not provide arms to the members of this volunteer militia. And they wanted to make sure this volunteer militia was well armed as it was the only protection for this new country. One of the reasons I dislike the NRA is because in the 70's they decided to change the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to your version. It was somewhat cemented by The John Roberts Supreme Court ruling in 2008-2009 . Of course you won't buy this but it is in fact true.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 6:19:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2015 16:44:40 GMT
Well aren't you a peach. Love how, every single time, the tolerant liberals are the first ones to accuse people they dont agree with of mental illness or instability. You all realize that you are part of the problem in dealing with the mental health problem in this country, right? With people who think like you in charge of this country, I sure as hell am never going to let the government have the ability to determine who is "crazy" and who isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Dec 4, 2015 16:52:34 GMT
I don't agree that is the only fix. Tighten federal laws and prosecution of straw man purchases. Look at closing loop holes of background checks through private sales and gun shows. Right now there's a huge discrepancy of laws and prosecution between states as the federal statutes are non-existent or not enforced. I'd also like to better understand how many of these instances or due to family members with high powered rifles that are unsecured. With rights come responsibilities, if you're not ensuring your mentally unstable adolescent doesn't have access to your high magazine, semi-automatic rifle - you should be prosecuted. Is this going to stop all gun deaths - of course not. The reality is almost 2/3 of the gun deaths are SUICIDES. But that doesn't mean that the choices are do nothing or confiscate all guns. California already has "closed the gun show loophole". Every purchase made at a gun show must go through a background check already. The same is true for all private sales in CA. If I want to sell my gun to my brother, and we both live in CA, I must take it to an FFL and he must have check run on him. But none of these measures has stopped a single incident of someone using a gun illegally. I'd also like to take exception to your description of these being "high powered rifles". They are no such things. A .556 is a caliber commonly used for killing small animals like ground hogs, prairie dogs and coyotes. In most states, its not even legal to use a .556 to hunt deer, as it's just not effective on game that size. "High Powered Rifle" is just another cooked up term, like "assault weapon", that has absolutely no meaning, other than to scare the uniformed. (not calling you uniformed, just a broad statement.) And yes, you are right - that with rights come responsibilities. But my responsibilities end when someone else steals my weapon. Of course all gun owners believe that their mentally ill relatives should not have access to their weapons. But we also all know that hindsight is 20/20. We also know that people are often mentally unstable before their family members even realize the extent of their illness. We also know that mistakes happen, and we also know that if someone wants to get a hold a gun, they will figure out how to do it. If someone - family member or not - steals my weapon from my house...meaning the take it without my permission...no, I should NOT be prosecuted, any more than I would be if my drunk son stole my car and plowed through a group of people. The stealing of the weapon from MY house is a crime committed against me. It doesn't matter if it was in a safe, a closet, or laying on the kitchen table. It was in my locked house, therefore it was as secure. You are right, there are other choices...but more laws restricting any legal possession, or prosecution of gun owners/maufacturers/sellers for illegal things other people do with legal weapons is NOT a viable choice. Eliminating gun free zones is a great place to start. As I'm sure you're aware, California is one of the few states that has closed the gun show loophole. If you want to pretend that the lack of background checks at gun shows and private sales aren't a factor, you're wholly wrong. This is just one example using the "so called" non-existent loophole to obtain weapons to funnel guns to a drug dealer: www.atf.gov/news/pr/illegal-firearms-dealer-admits-selling-more-200-guns-drug-dealers-and-other-criminals-camden
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Dec 4, 2015 17:00:02 GMT
I'm starting to think she IS Rush Limbaugh. ha ha ha. If only you all got your heads out of the asses of the liberal elites... you don't see the irony of accusing me of being "rush limbaugh" while you do nothing but parrot the talking points of every democrat on earth. Seriously. After all these years, its become quite amusing. But I also no longer have the patience to suffer fools. And fools you all are. I have the ability to use common sense. You, apparently, have lost that ability. I feel for you. Truly. The NRA is no more responsible for the gun violence in this country, than the American Medical Association is responsible for bad doctors. The total lack of critical thinking, fear of offending some victim group, desire to be a useful idiot...I don't know what causes this illness, but I'm sick of trying to bring light to you darkness. Please, Krazy...since you have once again sidestepped my question about which laws the NRA has thwarted that would have stopped this massacre...let me ask you this - Europe has almost universal gun control/gun bans. So how did the NRA cause last months Paris attack? I'll take you answer in long form, short form, as long as you provide facts. You are always completely devoid of facts. Please also explain how the NRA is responsible for the myriad of pipe bomb and incendiary devices that these cretins in SB had concocted...it's obvious that they had grander plans than just shooting people. How did the NRA enable them? Was the pipe bomb building just a hobby that they wouldn't have used, had they not been able to legally buy guns? I'll give you a fact though - you all are, despite your repeated protestations, 100% FOR confiscation and outright banning of guns. You want to completely erase the 2nd amendment. Just freaking admit it and we can move on. And while you are at it, if you are going to insist on "Expanded background checks" as Obama has repeatedly sqwaked about - I"m sure you will be totally fine with expanding those to include a mandatory waiting period for anyone with a middle eastern name or possible ties to Islam, right? Because we have now had at least three mass murders committed by Muslims. By YOUR reasoning, it is only smart to deamand that ALL Americans of middle eastern descent be subjected to extra scrutiny. Right? Hmm? The AMA actually holds a lot of responsibility for our medical and health care systems, and they have single handedly created a glut of specialists while diminishing our supply of general practitioners and primary care doctors. They have created a system where bedside manner and people are secondary to the ability to test well on a multiple choice tests. And all of this greatly impacts costs to consumers. I won't discuss guns with you though, you are way too entrenched in your "rightness" and no one will ever convince you. I'm afraid the only thing that would make you think differently is if this type of tragedy struck your own people. Someone you love. And I would not wish that on anyone.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 6:19:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2015 17:19:08 GMT
Until we get to the mental health issue, screaming gun control isn't going to change things. California had the bans in place. Didn't stop them. Same in Chicago, same in Paris. Gun bans aren't going to stop mass violence. It's cause and effect. I'd prefer to focus on the cause, not the effect (means). "Until we get to the mental health issue". Are you saying ONLY the mentally ill are the ones who use guns to kill innocents? I read in an article that I posted in the NRA/CDC thread that's only 3% of gun violence is done by someone who is mentally ill. So are we to ignore the other 97% shooters while we "get to the mental health issue"? I'm so tired of this stupid weak ass argument that CA has gun bans in place and looked what happened. I said this last night and I will say it again. Yesterday I was watching an Oakland, CA councilman talk about the problems of enforcing gun laws. He said CA can have all the gun bans in the world but if the neighboring states don't have the same laws banning certain guns CA is at a disadvantage in enforcing the gun bans. Know why? You should like this with your dislike of government. Because the state of California does not check every person for guns when they come into the state. So the councilman said they will continue to do the best they can with their laws. That also applies to Chicago and Paris by the way. That is why I have said on more than one occasion, as well meaning as these laws are. they will fail. And they will continue to fail until such time that they same set of laws apply in all states/counties/cities.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 6:19:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2015 17:32:36 GMT
. As to your question about why we can "have more power than what law enforcement officers carry" - because the 2nd amendment is not about hunting or target shooting. It is absolutely about keeping the citizens on an even playing field with their government, lest the government grow to tyrannical. .
Good grief woman do you really think that the citizens of the United States of America are or ever will be on an even playing field with the United States Military. Do tell...where do you keep your nuke?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 6:19:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2015 17:42:39 GMT
Ah @lynlam where to start..... Yes CA has strict gun laws. But , now pay attention here @lynlam , the states surrounding CA do not. And, again pay attention here @lynlam , people can freely go between states without the California Highway Patrol checking every car, motor home, truck/trailer or motorcycle for guns. Do you understand what that means @lynlam ? That means that some fool can buy a gun that is illegal in CA but legal in Nevada and bring it into the state and know one knows until it's used to kill people. Do I need to repeat it or do you understand what I just said and what it means? I already addressed this, krazy. Pay attention. I also stated that it is quite easy with a little knowledge to alter a CA legal weapon to make it illegal. Someone bent on using a high capacity magazine WILL find a way to do so. That still does not address the fact that there are already millions of these rifles in existence already. Are you going to confiscate them all?Waving your magic wand and making all gun laws uniform nationwide will accomplish nothing but making you feel good for a minute or two. All you are going to do is create a black market that WILL drive these guns into the hands of the people that you claim shouldn't have them. You will never confiscate them all. Never.Now let's talk about your constant yapping that background checks are mandatory. That is not true and you know it. There are loopholes in required background checks so big I could drive a big rig through it without coming close to touching the sides of said loophole. Yes background checks are required if a gun is purchased in a retail business. However, depending on the various state laws, background checks may or may not be required for private gun sales or gun show gun sales. I read somewhere it is estimated that up to 40% of gun sales are done without background checks. And yes @lynlam there is a gun show loophole. It exsists no matter how many times you try and say it doesn't. Please provide me with some facts that show where guns sold legally without a background check have been used in an significant number of crimes. What you have here is a solution in search of a problem. A person selling their handgun to a family member or a stranger in their state has not been shown to be any source of guns used in murders, robberies, rapes, or any other crimes. And no, there is not gun show loophole. It does not exist no matter how many times you try and say it does. Selling a gun to someone while at a gun show is no different than selling it to some guy who lives over on the next block. You are still bound by the SAME laws...it has to be a FACE TO FACE sale, and if you sell it to someone who you reasonably suspect should not have it, you ARE held liable if that gun is used in a crime (and can be traced to you). As to your comments about what CA thinks as "common sense" laws would not work in other states is just plain bullshit. There are certain laws that apply to ALL states. Like it's illegal to kill someone or steal someone's belongings, or swindle someone out of all their money. It's time laws governing guns should be the same in all states. I've already proven to you that none of CA's common sense laws actually work, or actually solve any problem, and it has nothing to do with wether or not gun laws are all the same across the country. But you will reject those facts and replace with your own twisted version of reality which rejects all facts out of hand that don't reinforce your vast knowledge of guns and gun laws. And it isn't bullshit. People who live in places where guns are a necessity rather than a toy would disagree with you, that they could or SHOULD get by with a 10 round magazine, or have to travel long distances to find an FFL holder just to be able to buy a rifle from their brother, just because some idiot somewhere MIGHT use a gun to commit a crime. I have to say when I read the crap about what you and your buddies at the NRA considered as acceptable collateral damage for your 2nd amendment rights I didn't if I should laugh or cry. If only that was true that you and the NRA felt that the acceptable number of innocent deaths is ZERO. Who are you trying to kid? It became exceeding clear after Sandy Hook that was not a true statement and nothing the NRA has done since says otherwise. You are truly a sick and twisted human being if you truly believe that anyone thinks that a single innocent death is "acceptable". It is YOUR side that thinks that "some" victims are acceptable, as long as we make it fewer. we've been having this argument for how many years now? you have yet to show my anything that the NRA has supposedly blocked that would stop ANY of these tragedies. Not ONE SINGLE THING. The NRA spends tens of millions of dollars every year running gun safety courses, promoting gun safety everywhere for everyone. The NRA supports legislation that strengthens the ability of law enforcement to deal with criminals, and prosecute gun law violators.
The NRA supports laws that keep violent offenders IN JAIL where they can't get their hands on weapons. Guess who supports "catch and release" laws that allow life criminals back on the street to do damage with their illegal guns? YOUR SIDE DOES. Liberals. (google "Bunny Park Shooting" and see what you get. Just happened last week, and not a word on the national news. Why? Because the shooters were career criminals with illegal guns who were released back amonst the population by liberal apologists who felt bad keeping them in jail.) So don't talk to me about the NRA until you get your effing facts straight, and take a good long look in the liberal mirror.
That must really bug people like you that you and your guns aren't welcome in a particular area. Get rid of gun free zones because they are "soft" targets for crazies. Where do you live? A crazy or terrorist doesn't need a gun free zone to hit "soft" targets. Soft targets are our schools, our churches, our movie theaters, our amusement parks, our shopping centers, our mass transit hubs. And they are easier to find then a gun free zone. You are so twisted when it comes to guns that you can't see how sad it is that folks feel the need to create "gun free" zones. Honey...all those places you listed ARE gun free zones. Every single one of them. So I don't understand your point. You are so twisted when it comes to guns that you can't see how ridiculously stupid and naive it is to actually create gun free zones. You really believe that criminals will see the "no guns" sign and slink away in defeat, despite the repeated proof otherwise - in the form of an increasing body count. So again...don't tell me that you care the slightest about innocent people getting killed, because you don't. You only care about taking away guns from people who have nothing to do with these crimes, and are in fact handcuffed in most cases and kept from being able to do anything to STOP the carnage when it does happen.Ok now you have gone off the deep end with all this crap on why crazies/terrorists wouldn't attack an NRA convention. Because they KNOW the NRA folks can kill countless people. Really? Have these mysterious people had a lot of experience in killing people? Unless these folks with their guns have been "tested" know one knows how they will react. For all we know when these macho men and women with their big ass guns are face to face with a crazy/terrorist with a BIGGER gun who are willing and expecting to die these macho men or women could run away screaming. Oh good lord. I don't even know what to do with that diatribe of utter bullshit.I'm old enough to say that back in the day when I was going to school we were taught the correct and accepted for 200 years interpretation of the 2nd amendment. That it was only the militia that had the right to bear arms. The reason was simple because at that time there was no standing army but a volunteer militia and what government there was at the time did not provide arms to the members of this volunteer militia. And they wanted to make sure this volunteer militia was well armed as it was the only protection for this new country. One of the reasons I dislike the NRA is because in the 70's they decided to change the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to your version. It was somewhat cemented by The John Roberts Supreme Court ruling in 2008-2009 . Of course you won't buy this but it is in fact true. And i'm old enough to know that you are revising history. It's quite obvious that you slept through your history and government classes and are remembering only what you need to in order to reinforce your distorted world views. There are countless volumes of writings available to us from those brilliant men, that make it clear that the individual right to bear arms was the intention of the 2nd Amendment.
The Congress actually established a US military on sept 29, 1789. We already had the continental army, but congress made it official. And when was the Bill of Rights written? Do you remember the date? Yeah..1789. And finally ratified in 1791. So there your argument once again falls apart. So why would we need the 2nd amendment to establish a militia because we "didn't have a standing army" when in fact they HAD already established a standing army? Why would they include that in the BILL OF RIGHTS, making it almost impossible to amend or repeal, if they didn't think that it was such an important right? They would have made it much more limited, but they DIDN'T. And I'm sorry that the evil NRA actually stepped up and started educating people about true and real facts. Sorry it interrupted your sorry revisionist history. #sorrynotsorry
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 6:19:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2015 17:47:53 GMT
. As to your question about why we can "have more power than what law enforcement officers carry" - because the 2nd amendment is not about hunting or target shooting. It is absolutely about keeping the citizens on an even playing field with their government, lest the government grow to tyrannical. .
Good grief woman do you really think that the citizens of the United States of America are or ever will be on an even playing field with the United States Military. Do tell...where do you keep your nuke? Straw man argument. Try again.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 6:19:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2015 17:51:26 GMT
Well aren't you a peach. Love how, every single time, the tolerant liberals are the first ones to accuse people they dont agree with of mental illness or instability. You all realize that you are part of the problem in dealing with the mental health problem in this country, right? With people who think like you in charge of this country, I sure as hell am never going to let the government have the ability to determine who is "crazy" and who isn't. link
Sorry it's not "them there liberals" that is responsible for the problems we are having caring for the mentally ill today. Oh no the one responsible for the current state of the care of mentally ill belongs to who some call "The Greatest Republican of All Times". Ronald Reagan. He dismantled CA's mental health system when he was governor and carried on his "good" work to the rest of the country once he became President. And we are still trying to recover from his meddling all these years later. And the ONLY reason GOP politicians are even talking about doing something about mental health is because they are using it as a distraction from doing anything about gun violence in general. If it wasn't for the distraction factor from gun violence the GOP politicians would continue to feel that the mental illness problem is something "them there bleeding heart liberals" are making up.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 6:19:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2015 18:24:45 GMT
California already has "closed the gun show loophole". Every purchase made at a gun show must go through a background check already. The same is true for all private sales in CA. If I want to sell my gun to my brother, and we both live in CA, I must take it to an FFL and he must have check run on him. But none of these measures has stopped a single incident of someone using a gun illegally. I'd also like to take exception to your description of these being "high powered rifles". They are no such things. A .556 is a caliber commonly used for killing small animals like ground hogs, prairie dogs and coyotes. In most states, its not even legal to use a .556 to hunt deer, as it's just not effective on game that size. "High Powered Rifle" is just another cooked up term, like "assault weapon", that has absolutely no meaning, other than to scare the uniformed. (not calling you uniformed, just a broad statement.) And yes, you are right - that with rights come responsibilities. But my responsibilities end when someone else steals my weapon. Of course all gun owners believe that their mentally ill relatives should not have access to their weapons. But we also all know that hindsight is 20/20. We also know that people are often mentally unstable before their family members even realize the extent of their illness. We also know that mistakes happen, and we also know that if someone wants to get a hold a gun, they will figure out how to do it. If someone - family member or not - steals my weapon from my house...meaning the take it without my permission...no, I should NOT be prosecuted, any more than I would be if my drunk son stole my car and plowed through a group of people. The stealing of the weapon from MY house is a crime committed against me. It doesn't matter if it was in a safe, a closet, or laying on the kitchen table. It was in my locked house, therefore it was as secure. You are right, there are other choices...but more laws restricting any legal possession, or prosecution of gun owners/maufacturers/sellers for illegal things other people do with legal weapons is NOT a viable choice. Eliminating gun free zones is a great place to start. As I'm sure you're aware, California is one of the few states that has closed the gun show loophole. If you want to pretend that the lack of background checks at gun shows and private sales aren't a factor, you're wholly wrong. This is just one example using the "so called" non-existent loophole to obtain weapons to funnel guns to a drug dealer: www.atf.gov/news/pr/illegal-firearms-dealer-admits-selling-more-200-guns-drug-dealers-and-other-criminals-camden i I never said it wasn't a factor at all. Yes, it happens, but it is insignificant in the grand scheme of guns used in crimes. And he did not buy his illegal guns just from gun shows, did he? he also used straw purchasers, meaning paid people to buy them from a gun store, undergoing a background check. And he knew that every single thing he did was already illegal. He was determined to skirt the law in every way possible, and he did. And then he was caught and prosecuted. It's naive to think that he would have not sought to buy and sell illegal guns just because the "loophole" was closed. It's naive to think that gun shows are the major source of illegal weapons...they just aren't. We can always find examples of people skirting laws, any law, for their own gain. You will never ever stop it. They will always find a way around it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 6:19:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2015 18:40:10 GMT
Sorry @lynlam but I can't continue to play today as much fun as it is.
But I have to make one comment about me revising history.
I have to admit how naive I was when I started to hang out here and the thing that amazed me the most was how often people changed history. It just never occurred to me that people would do that but yet they do. Or I should say the interpretation of what happened in the past.
And I yes have read books that say the opposite of what you are touting.
What I said the about the 2nd Amendment and what we were taught in school is true. Believe it don't believe it that is entirely up to you.
The fact is when the NRA started to change the definition of the 2nd amendment the NRA let a genie out of the bottle that has resulted in thousands of innocent deaths over the years and I'm not sure we can ever get that genie back into the bottle which mean thousands of more innocent people will continue to die. So pardon me if I don't buy into the NRA believes accepted number of innocent deaths is ZERO crap. It's just not true @lynlam no matter how many times you say it. The actions of the NRA says otherwise.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 6:19:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2015 19:15:15 GMT
Dear Krazy... I present to you facts...from the ATF, so you can't claim bias. The vast marjority of guns used in CA crimes are sourced WITHIN Califronia.Pay particular attention to page 7. Of 21,267 firearm traces of weapons recovered in crimes in the state, 15,169 of them traced to a source within the state of CA. Meaning the were orginally, legally purchased within the state, not in a neighboring state. So your claim that most of the illegal weapons in the state come from surrounding states is totally debunked and patently false.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 6:19:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2015 22:19:01 GMT
Dear Krazy... I present to you facts...from the ATF, so you can't claim bias. The vast marjority of guns used in CA crimes are sourced WITHIN Califronia.Pay particular attention to page 7. Of 21,267 firearm traces of weapons recovered in crimes in the state, 15,169 of them traced to a source within the state of CA. Meaning the were orginally, legally purchased within the state, not in a neighboring state. So your claim that most of the illegal weapons in the state come from surrounding states is totally debunked and patently false. link
Dear @lynlam. I didn't say "most" guns. Nor did I say "all" guns. But in retrospect maybe I should have been a bit clearer and specify guns that CA deem illegal. But silly me I assumed you would understand what I was talking about since CA has an awful lot of legal guns floating around that are used illegally. And nothing was debunked. Especially when you read the disclaimer by the ATF at the beginning of the report. I have attached an article from Huffington Post that takes the information in your report and puts it in perspective. It uses the same numbers but as in everything you post nothing is just plain black and white as you try and make it as there is always more to the story. Well here is the rest of the story.
|
|
|
Post by berty on Dec 5, 2015 1:40:28 GMT
Ah @lynlam where to start..... Yes CA has strict gun laws. But , now pay attention here @lynlam, the states surrounding CA do not. And, again pay attention here @lynlam, people can freely go between states without the California Highway Patrol checking every car, motor home, truck/trailer or motorcycle for guns. Do you understand what that means @lynlam? That means that some fool can buy a gun that is illegal in CA but legal in Nevada and bring it into the state and know one knows until it's used to kill people. Do I need to repeat it or do you understand what I just said and what it means? Now let's talk about your constant yapping that background checks are mandatory. That is not true and you know it. There are loopholes in required background checks so big I could drive a big rig through it without coming close to touching the sides of said loophole. Yes background checks are required if a gun is purchased in a retail business. However, depending on the various state laws, background checks may or may not be required for private gun sales or gun show gun sales. I read somewhere it is estimated that up to 40% of gun sales are done without background checks. And yes @lynlam there is a gun show loophole. It exsists no matter how many times you try and say it doesn't. As to your comments about what CA thinks as "common sense" laws would not work in other states is just plain bullshit. There are certain laws that apply to ALL states. Like it's illegal to kill someone or steal someone's belongings, or swindle someone out of all their money. It's time laws governing guns should be the same in all states. I have to say when I read the crap about what you and your buddies at the NRA considered as acceptable collateral damage for your 2nd amendment rights I didn't if I should laugh or cry. If only that was true that you and the NRA felt that the acceptable number of innocent deaths is ZERO. Who are you trying to kid? It became exceeding clear after Sandy Hook that was not a true statement and nothing the NRA has done since says otherwise. That must really bug people like you that you and your guns aren't welcome in a particular area. Get rid of gun free zones because they are "soft" targets for crazies. Where do you live? A crazy or terrorist doesn't need a gun free zone to hit "soft" targets. Soft targets are our schools, our churches, our movie theaters, our amusement parks, our shopping centers, our mass transit hubs. And they are easier to find then a gun free zone. You are so twisted when it comes to guns that you can't see how sad it is that folks feel the need to create "gun free" zones. Ok now you have gone off the deep end with all this crap on why crazies/terrorists wouldn't attack an NRA convention. Because they KNOW the NRA folks can kill countless people. Really? Have these mysterious people had a lot of experience in killing people? Unless these folks with their guns have been "tested" know one knows how they will react. For all we know when these macho men and women with their big ass guns are face to face with a crazy/terrorist with a BIGGER gun who are willing and expecting to die these macho men or women could run away screaming. I'm old enough to say that back in the day when I was going to school we were taught the correct and accepted for 200 years interpretation of the 2nd amendment. That it was only the militia that had the right to bear arms. The reason was simple because at that time there was no standing army but a volunteer militia and what government there was at the time did not provide arms to the members of this volunteer militia. And they wanted to make sure this volunteer militia was well armed as it was the only protection for this new country. One of the reasons I dislike the NRA is because in the 70's they decided to change the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to your version. It was somewhat cemented by The John Roberts Supreme Court ruling in 2008-2009 . Of course you won't buy this but it is in fact true. I LOVE YOU!!!
|
|
|
Post by birukitty on Dec 5, 2015 2:42:35 GMT
Ah @lynlam where to start..... Yes CA has strict gun laws. But , now pay attention here @lynlam , the states surrounding CA do not. And, again pay attention here @lynlam , people can freely go between states without the California Highway Patrol checking every car, motor home, truck/trailer or motorcycle for guns. Do you understand what that means @lynlam ? That means that some fool can buy a gun that is illegal in CA but legal in Nevada and bring it into the state and know one knows until it's used to kill people. Do I need to repeat it or do you understand what I just said and what it means? Now let's talk about your constant yapping that background checks are mandatory. That is not true and you know it. There are loopholes in required background checks so big I could drive a big rig through it without coming close to touching the sides of said loophole. Yes background checks are required if a gun is purchased in a retail business. However, depending on the various state laws, background checks may or may not be required for private gun sales or gun show gun sales. I read somewhere it is estimated that up to 40% of gun sales are done without background checks. And yes @lynlam there is a gun show loophole. It exsists no matter how many times you try and say it doesn't. As to your comments about what CA thinks as "common sense" laws would not work in other states is just plain bullshit. There are certain laws that apply to ALL states. Like it's illegal to kill someone or steal someone's belongings, or swindle someone out of all their money. It's time laws governing guns should be the same in all states. I have to say when I read the crap about what you and your buddies at the NRA considered as acceptable collateral damage for your 2nd amendment rights I didn't if I should laugh or cry. If only that was true that you and the NRA felt that the acceptable number of innocent deaths is ZERO. Who are you trying to kid? It became exceeding clear after Sandy Hook that was not a true statement and nothing the NRA has done since says otherwise. That must really bug people like you that you and your guns aren't welcome in a particular area. Get rid of gun free zones because they are "soft" targets for crazies. Where do you live? A crazy or terrorist doesn't need a gun free zone to hit "soft" targets. Soft targets are our schools, our churches, our movie theaters, our amusement parks, our shopping centers, our mass transit hubs. And they are easier to find then a gun free zone. You are so twisted when it comes to guns that you can't see how sad it is that folks feel the need to create "gun free" zones. Ok now you have gone off the deep end with all this crap on why crazies/terrorists wouldn't attack an NRA convention. Because they KNOW the NRA folks can kill countless people. Really? Have these mysterious people had a lot of experience in killing people? Unless these folks with their guns have been "tested" know one knows how they will react. For all we know when these macho men and women with their big ass guns are face to face with a crazy/terrorist with a BIGGER gun who are willing and expecting to die these macho men or women could run away screaming. I'm old enough to say that back in the day when I was going to school we were taught the correct and accepted for 200 years interpretation of the 2nd amendment. That it was only the militia that had the right to bear arms. The reason was simple because at that time there was no standing army but a volunteer militia and what government there was at the time did not provide arms to the members of this volunteer militia. And they wanted to make sure this volunteer militia was well armed as it was the only protection for this new country. One of the reasons I dislike the NRA is because in the 70's they decided to change the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to your version. It was somewhat cemented by The John Roberts Supreme Court ruling in 2008-2009 . Of course you won't buy this but it is in fact true. I LOVE YOU!!! ME TOO!! I'd be jumping in here and helping you, but I've got a nasty cold with a sore throat. I see you're handling things very well on your own though Debbie in MD.
|
|