View Full Version : Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
Pages :
1
[
2]
3
4
5
6
7
8
The Reaper
03-19-2013, 18:14
This is the crux of it. These laws are packaged as "for the children" or to "make us safer". They are really about control and disarmament but being that obvious would go over like a fart in church even for our low information voters. So, they lie.
Personally, I think the population of this country loses intelligence and has less knowledge every day.
We punish the successful, reward the lazy, and reinforce failure.
The eventual result is inevitable.
TR
This is good news but it's just round one with these people, they have been emboldened and they are not to be trusted. It's a long time before the next election, God help us.
Dozer523
03-19-2013, 19:21
So we congratulate ourselves on a win. Right where we were before Sandyhook. Actually, from the sales data there are actually more guns out there now, and more to come with all the back orders.
Except, that the guns and ammo are now much more expensive.
And the kids are still dead and the live ones are no safer.
And the kids are still dead and the live ones are no safer.
Banning violent video games to reduce Sandy Hook-style rampages would do more to keep people alive.
Banning guns a la DiFi's bill is as impractical as banning cars to keep kids safe.
Why don't you libs concentrate on saving the millions of kids killed in car wrecks instead of trying to disarm an entire free society because of isolated instances where insane scumbags play Call of Duty with live ammo? :munchin
Banning violent video games to reduce Sandy Hook-style rampages would do more to keep people alive.
Banning guns a la DiFi's bill is as impractical as banning cars to keep kids safe.
Why don't you libs concentrate on saving the millions of kids killed in car wrecks instead of trying to disarm an entire free society because of isolated instances where insane scumbags play Call of Duty with live ammo? :munchin
Exactly. Where is the liberals' righteous indignation over these senseless murders?
Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, faces the death penalty if convicted of killing seven late-term babies after they were born alive. He is also charged with third-degree murder in the overdose death of a 41-year-old refugee who sought an abortion in 2009.
Medical assistant Adrienne Moton admitted Tuesday that she had cut the necks of at least 10 babies after they were delivered, as Gosnell had instructed her. Gosnell and another employee regularly "snipped" the spines "to ensure fetal demise," she said.
Shop of Horrors... (http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_22829373/dr-kermit-gosnell-trial-abortion-clinic-worker-describes)
Senseless murders of innocents indeed...don't hear any liberals arguing in Congress for tighter controls and more restrictions on abortion...
So honestly, liberals, until you get your own house in order, go f__k yourself over trying to take away our 2nd Amendment rights...
Why don't you libs concentrate on saving the millions of kids killed in car wrecks instead of trying to disarm an entire free society because of isolated instances where insane scumbags play Call of Duty with live ammo? :munchin
See post #248
Dozer523
03-20-2013, 13:19
Why don't you libs concentrate on saving the millions of kids killed in car wrecks instead of trying to disarm an entire free society because of isolated instances where insane scumbags play Call of Duty with live ammo? :munchin Dusty,
First, nothing wrong with being liberal on some subjects, this country was founded by Liberals.
Second, I'm still looking for the people or legislation that is trying to disarm our entire free society. Where are they and who are they? I want to know.
I'm with you, I just want to regulate the insane scumbags who play Call of Duty with guns and live ammo. i think most of those calling for some improvements to our gun laws feel the same way.
As for your comment of auto fatalities, regulation was very unpopular when it was called for initially in the 50's and 60. Regulation over the years has drastically reduced fatalities.
Next time you get in your car look around.
Do you have a driver's license? Mandatory personal training and periodic qualification
Licence and registration? annual licensing and registration of vehicle
Minimum insurance? you are responsible for the damage by you and or your car
Auto emission check? vehicle serviceability and safety check
One way sign? restrictions on where cars can and cannot go
Toll booths? limited access
Speed limit signs? restrictions on how cars can be used
Taxes on gasoline? pays for roads
Highway Patrol and other types of police? Random and ever present enforcement of existing regulations covering drivers and vehicles at state, county, community levels
Meter maids fair use of temporary storage
Seat belt? mandatory driver safety equipment
Highway emergency call boxes (not so much anymore but) in place services and recognition that driving is inherently dangerous
National Highway Safety Board, Department of Transportation? Federal regulation
Formula One racers? we're not allowed to drive anything we want
Need more?
Next time you get in your car look around.
Do you have a driver's license? Mandatory personal training and periodic qualification
Licence and registration? annual licensing and registration of vehicle
Minimum insurance? you are responsible for the damage by you and or your car
Auto emission check? vehicle serviceability and safety check
One way sign? restrictions on where cars can and cannot go
Toll booths? limited access
Speed limit signs? restrictions on how cars can be used
Taxes on gasoline? pays for roads
Highway Patrol and other types of police? Random and ever present enforcement of existing regulations covering drivers and vehicles at state, county, community levels
Meter maids fair use of temporary storage
Seat belt? mandatory driver safety equipment
Highway emergency call boxes (not so much anymore but) in place services and recognition that driving is inherently dangerous
National Highway Safety Board, Department of Transportation? Federal regulation
Formula One racers? we're not allowed to drive anything we want
Need more?
^ All of that...not in the Constitution as a right that shall not be infringed.
Also "I'm still looking for the people or legislation that is trying to disarm our entire free society. Where are they and who are they? I want to know. "
Have you read the bill DiFi submitted???
Dozer523
03-20-2013, 14:25
^ All of that...not in the Constitution as a right that shall not be infringed.
Also "I'm still looking for the people or legislation that is trying to disarm our entire free society. Where are they and who are they? I want to know. "
Have you read the bill DiFi submitted???
I knew your first point was coming. And I do not dispute the wording. It is what it is. Whether the word choice is open to interpretation is what the discussion focuses on.
My point in addressing our Brothers argument about regulating cars is that it doesn't contribute IMO.
My point in addressing our Brothers argument about regulating cars is that it doesn't contribute IMO.
It absolutely contributes, especially when the "advertising" of the necessity of the law(s) is that it/they will save "at least one life". If you hang your hat on a point, you better be ready to defend that point, and the dems have completely failed in this "saving lives" propaganda.
The real irony here is that if we're truly ascribing to a liberal philosophy, then I would expect that the cry would be for harsher penalties on specific actions, such as using a gun in the commission of a crime, rather than an attack that infringes on a guaranteed personal freedom.
Dozer523
03-20-2013, 16:12
It absolutely contributes, especially when the "advertising" of the necessity of the law(s) is that it/they will save "at least one life". If you hang your hat on a point, you better be ready to defend that point, and the dems have completely failed in this "saving lives" propaganda. You don't like the choice of the number "one"?
Would you prefer 2,947? That's the number of children and teens who died from gunfire in 2008.
Or maybe 2,793? That's the number of children who died from gunfire in 2009.
How about 3,625? That is the peak number of child homicides committed in 1993.
Maybe 13,791? that is the number of children and teens who were injured by gunfire in 2009.
I have one more, 20,596. Thats the decade high (2000-2010) the number of kids injured by gunfire in 2008.
I think even the most ardent gun rights advocate finds these numbers alarming.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/03/27/8536/childrens-defense-fund-report-kids-gun-deaths-new-gun-laws
I'm looking for a similar study detailing children who die in traffic. Still looking but found this one. its worth a read if just to remind you when not to drive or take to the sidewalks. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146212,00.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html
Restricting responsible gun owners' right to own what they need to to fight an oppressive government is not the answer.
Team Sergeant
03-20-2013, 16:24
You don't like the choice of the number "one"?
Would you prefer 2,947? That's the number of children and teens who died from gunfire in 2008.
Or maybe 2,793? That's the number of children who died from gunfire in 2009.
How about 3,625? That is the peak number of child homicides committed in 1993.
Maybe 13,791? that is the number of children and teens who were injured by gunfire in 2009.
I have one more, 20,596. Thats the decade high (2000-2010) the number of kids injured by gunfire in 2008.
I think even the most ardent gun rights advocate finds these numbers alarming.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/03/27/8536/childrens-defense-fund-report-kids-gun-deaths-new-gun-laws
I'm looking for a similar study detailing children who die in traffic. Still looking but found this one. its worth a read if just to remind you when not to drive or take to the sidewalks. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146212,00.html
Disappointing how most of those children were killed in gun free zones like Chicago, Detroit and Wash D.C.
Dozer523, let's keep this on point, gun control by the liberals is stupid and it does not work.
Dozer523
03-20-2013, 16:46
Disappointing how most of those children were killed in gun free zones like Chicago, Detroit and Wash D.C.
Dozer523, let's keep this on point, gun control by the liberals is stupid and it does not work. Team Sergeant, if the point is that Liberals' efforts to contain, much less prevent gun related fatalities among children are a failure; I will concede that point.
So what is the non-Liberal plan and how is it doing when measured against gun-related fatalities /injuries among kids? (Just kids, as far as I'm concerned all adults are on their own.)
2,136 was the total of children killed in motorized vehicles in 2003. And none of them were driving. Sorry, not as current as I'd like. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809762.pdf
Pericles
03-20-2013, 16:54
Team Sergeant, if the point is that Liberals' efforts to contain, much less prevent gun related fatalities among children are a failure; I will concede that point.
So what is the non-Liberal plan and how is it doing when measured against gun-related fatalities /injuries among kids? (Just kids, as far as I'm concerned all adults are on their own.)
2,136 was the total of children killed in motorized vehicles in 2003. And none of them were driving. Sorry, not as current as I'd like. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809762.pdf
If laws against murder fail to stop murderers, why would one think that laws restricting personal property will help.
The different approach is for all to be well armed, just as you are when sent somewhere dangerous.
Mutual Assured Destruction seemed to work out......
Dozer, I would think that those numbers would be higher as there are more than 1.4 million Outlaw Gang Members and more than 33,000 Outlaw Gangs running around here in the US. Gangs are a problem in most every major population centers. We should address the mental illness and criminals running free. Mental illness is a major problem with the attacks we have seen but most folks want to sweep it under the rug to hide it. In my opinion, all murderers that use weapons should be executed within one year of conviction. Other criminal acts with weapons involved, add 10 years to the sentence, no chance of parole. If the sentence has true teeth there is less likely of transgressions.
In my opinion, guns in the hands of RESPONSIBLE citizens is a crime deterrent.
2011 National Gang Threat Assessment – Emerging Trends
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment
Dozer,
Just a little more perspective on those stats:
In 2003, there were more than 60 million children under 15 years old in the
United States. This age group (0-14 years) made up 21 percent of the total U.S.
resident population in 2003.
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children of every age
from 2 to 14 years old (based on 2001 figures, which are the latest mortality data
currently available from the National Center for Health Statistics).
In 2003, there were a total of 42,643 traffic fatalities in the United States. The 0-14
age group accounted for 5 percent (2,136) of those traffic fatalities. In addition,
children under 15 years old accounted for 4 percent (1,591) of all vehicle occupant
fatalities, 9 percent (253,000) of all the people injured in motor vehicle crashes,
and 8 percent (220,000) of all the vehicle occupants injured in crashes.
In the United States, an average of 6 children 0-14 years old were killed and 694
were injured every day in motor vehicle crashes during 2003.
In the 0-14 year age group, males accounted for 59 percent of the fatalities and 50
percent of those injured in motor vehicle crashes during 2003.
From: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809762.pdf
This, compared to the over 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually. How many children might have been saved out of that 2.5 million?
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt
As far as "non-liberal" plans for protecting the 2A and all our citizens (including children) go...IMO there's a pretty good one in the OP...18 pages back. Just sayin'...
tonyz beat me to it (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=497005#post497005)
I knew your first point was coming. And I do not dispute the wording. It is what it is. Whether the word choice is open to interpretation is what the discussion focuses on.
My point in addressing our Brothers argument about regulating cars is that it doesn't contribute IMO.
Dozer, I understand your second point and would respectfully submit that your second applies to your first!
A not so recent article - but one that IMO contains a number of interesting and helpful observations regarding interpretation of the 2A.
A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms
by Nelson Lund, J.D., Ph.D.
©2002 by the Virginia Institute for Public Policy, Potomac Falls, Virginia, No. 7, June 2002
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. - The Second Amendment
"The Second Amendment is among the most misunderstood provisions of the U.S. Constitution. That is not because it is particularly difficult to understand. On the contrary, for more than a hundred years after it was adopted, hardly anyone seemed the least bit confused about what it meant. The confusion, and some serious mistakes, only became widespread in the twentieth century, when influential people began to think it was a good idea to disarm the civilian population. Because the plain meaning of the Second Amendment rather obviously creates an obstacle to these disarmament schemes, the temptation to misinterpret this provision of the Constitution became very strong."
http://www.virginiainstitute.org/publications/primer_on_const.php#c2
Dozer523
03-20-2013, 20:31
Dozer, I understand your second point and would respectfully submit that your second applies to your first!
This thread WAS getting kind of boring. :p
"For The Sake Of The Children" ...or other such prattle. (http://thedamntrueexperiment.blogspot.com/2013/03/for-sake-of-children-or-other-such.html)
:munchin
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2013/03/woollard_revers.php
Woollard reversed
POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 21 MARCH 2013 10:04 AM
Just in. The District Court had sticken Maryland's "shall issue" carry permit system. The Fourth Circuit reverses, finding that it passes intermediate scrutiny. Another one bound for the Supreme Court.
See attachment
Newly released Congressional Research Service informational report.
Richard :munchin
Public Mass Shootings in the United States:
Selected Implications for Federal Public Health and Safety Policy
CRS, 18 mAR 2013 (attchd pdf)
Summary
This report focuses on mass shootings and selected implications they have for federal policy in the areas of public health and safety. While such crimes most directly impact particular citizens in very specific communities, addressing these violent episodes involves officials at all levels of government and professionals from numerous disciplines.
This report does not discuss gun control and does not systematically address the broader issue of gun violence. Also, it is not intended as an exhaustive review of federal programs addressing the issue of mass shootings.
Defining Public Mass Shooting
Policy makers may confront numerous questions about shootings such as the December 2012 incident at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, that claimed 27 lives (not including the shooter). Foremost, what are the parameters of this threat? How should it be defined? There is no broadly agreed-to, specific conceptualization of this issue, so this report uses its own definition for public mass shootings. These are incidents occurring in relatively public places, involving four or more deaths—not including the shooter(s)—and gunmen who select victims somewhat indiscriminately. The violence in these cases is not a means to an end—the gunmen do not pursue criminal profit or kill in the name of terrorist ideologies, for example.
One Measure of the Death Toll Exacted by Public Mass Shootings. Applying this understanding of the issue, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has identified 78 public mass shootings that have occurred in the United States since 1983. This suggests the scale of this threat and is intended as a thorough review of the phenomenon but should not be characterized as exhaustive or definitive. According to CRS estimates, over the last three decades public mass shootings have claimed 547 lives and led to an additional 476 injured victims. Significantly, while tragic and shocking, public mass shootings account for few of the murders or non-negligent homicides related to firearms that occur annually in the United States.
Policymaking Challenges in Public Health and Safety
Aside from trying to develop a sense of this phenomenon’s scope, policy makers may face other challenges when addressing this topic. To help describe some of the health and safety issues public mass shootings pose, this report discusses selected policy in three areas: law enforcement, public health, and education. While mass shootings may occur in a number of settings, the education realm is one that has received particular attention from policy makers, officials, and the public alike—at least since the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. The tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary has renewed such concerns for many.
In the areas of law enforcement, public health, and education, this report discusses some key efforts to prevent mass shootings as well as efforts geared toward preparedness and response.
Policy measures that deal with recovery are also discussed within the context of education and public health initiatives.
Policy Effectiveness and Outlay of Resources.
Many of the policymaking challenges regarding public mass shootings boil down to two interrelated matters: (1) a need to determine the effectiveness of existing programs and (2) figuring out where to disburse limited resources.
Finally, baseline metrics related to this problem are often unclear or unavailable. This lack of clarity starts with identifying the number of shootings themselves, since no broadly agreed-to definition exists. Several questions flow from this issue. How many people have such incidents victimized? How much does prevention of, preparedness for, and response to such incidents cost the federal government? What measurements can be used to determine the effectiveness of such programs?
I think this Army Officer does a good job of poignantly laying out some of the dilemma of the issue as many Americans might see it today.
Richard :munchin
Fort Hood, Sandy Hook and Powerlessness
JessicaScott, 21 Mar 2013
I hope I don’t offend a lot of people off with this post. It is not my intent. I’ve been wanting to write about a lot of things that have been happening lately but I’ve found that when I sit down to write, the right words don’t come to me.
So I realize that writing about Sandy Hook almost 6 months later is probably, well, behind the times. But I’ve finally figured out what I want to say, so here goes.
I want to explain why I – as a gun owner – am deeply conflicted about what to do. I want a common sense solution – one that keeps our children safe while still allowing access to the fundamental right that so many of us hold dear. I grew up around guns. I’m a soldier, so I’m comfortable around guns. When I deployed to Iraq, I had my weapon on me at all times. I remember coming home and looking for it in blind panic at one point, only remember that no, I’m not in Iraq any more. Not a PTSD flashback but an oh my God where did I leave my weapon sinking heart feeling.
I want to tell you two stories.
The Aftermath of Fort Hood
I came home from Iraq a month after the Fort Hood shootings, when one of our own wearing our rank and our uniforms walked into a building full of unarmed soldiers and civilians and started shooting. He did it to prove a point – he wanted to target soldiers in his war against us.
So when I came back to Fort Hood with my little girls – who were six and four at the time, it was to enroll my oldest in kindergarten. She had started her school years in the same elementary school that I’d attended as a little girl. There were maybe 50 kids in that whole school. It’s the kind of school where the kids you start with will probably be the kids you graduate with years later. It was small. It was, in my mind, safe.
Then we rolled up to my daughter’s new school. It was massive. There were 700 elementary school kids racing through the halls. Fourth graders who looked like giants next to my little girl.
But I asked about security. How did they keep people out? Did they have active shooter drills? They answered yes to all of those questions and I – with my husband’s hand on my shoulder – had to release my six year old into an unfamiliar school filled with strange, big children and pray that no one would target a school full of military kids to wage a war against our soldiers’ families.
Helplessness in Command
My second story takes place a very short time before I left company command. A company commander has a lot of power and influence. I promise you there is no job out there that gives me more access to medical information, police records. I can know almost everything about you. I am charged by my directives to use that power for good and to never abuse it.
But part of that power comes the massive responsibility to ensure that our soldiers are mentally and medically prepared to go to war. So when a soldier comes to one of our NCOs and says, I’m hearing a voice and it’s telling me I may have to kill my family, we’re going to the hospital.
A few short weeks after Sandy Hook, I found myself sitting in the doctors office, having a conversation about how do we keep The Voice from getting angry. What can we do to ensure the Voice stays benevolent and doesn’t keep the soldier awake at night. Or doesn’t keep talking to him at all.
You may or may not believe in demons but let me tell you, that was some really terrifying stuff. And demons or psychiatric illness, the end result is no less terrifying.
But in the aftermath of that conversation, when we decided on the evaluations they would run and no, they wouldn’t allow the soldier out of the hospital until the medication was working correctly, I had an argument with my father. He was complaining about a gun show being cancelled after Sandy Hook.
And I lost my mind. Because no matter how much authority I have a company commander, there was NOTHING I could do that would prevent that soldier from getting out of the hospital, driving himself off post and buying as many guns as he wanted. I couldn’t legally restrict him to post. I couldn’t bar him from buying/owning weapons. All I could do was keep him from firing the government weapons in my arms room.
The utter and complete powerlessness that I felt in that moment sticks with me and it colors how I see gun control.
We say oh, we can’t stop the crazies. We should all be responsible. We should, we should, we should.
But should is a four letter word in my world. It doesn’t describe how things are. I don’t want the fear that one of the violent, sociopathic, super-deviants out there who are idolizing the Aurora killer or the Sandy Hook killer to be able to get their hands on weapons. Because those people are out there. They want to up the score to the next level. Don’t believe me? Go look it up. There may be thousands of them with a sick desire to outdo Lanza.
As we see again and again, it only takes one.
I don’t know what right looks like when it comes to gun control. I certainly don’t want it to be arbitrarily enforced. I don’t want veterans afraid to seek mental health because they’re terrified of losing their right to bear arms. But if someone is unbalanced enough that they can’t care for themselves, do we really want to give them access to weapons?
But something – some rational middle ground has got to be found. Surely in the greatest nation on earth we can come up with something that makes sense? We the people. Not the corporations or their lobbyist pawns.
Us. The fabric that holds this great nation together.
Can’t we?
IThe utter and complete powerlessness that I felt in that moment sticks with me and it colors how I see gun control.
Why do human beings always think they have to control everything? There are a million threats in everyday life that one can feel "powerless" to control. Car accidents, heart attacks, you name it. Why the mental gyrations over "common sense" gun control but not other possibilities?
The only "common sense" gun control I would be willing to debate is the purchase/ownership of surface to air missiles, anti-tank weapons, grenades, etc.
"We Should"
We often discuss what we should do and never the consequences of such actions. In spite of all the laws we pass - do we really ever make things any better?
Stiletto11
03-22-2013, 09:59
The career politicians have to make laws to justify thier existance. It is also a scheme to gain control and for some it is because they think they are the ruling elite and know what is best for the commoners.
Badger52
03-22-2013, 11:23
Sinjefe pretty much encapsulates my response to the letter by the former Company Commander which was thoughtful, and understandable.
Just an observation but it seems, when contrasted with the bulk of online outlets of any persuasion recently, that this thread in this forum, with the Quiet Professionals' letter as the topic, has spawned more civil discussion than any blog comments section could hope to achieve. My personal answer to despots remains unchanged. That is distinct from the fact that the letter remains of serious worth.
Some weeks hence now, might be a good time for one to evaluate whether the topic has led us to any other acquaintances who should be getting the benefit of a copy and provide it to them.
Dozer523
03-22-2013, 14:24
Why do human beings always think they have to control everything? There are a million threats in everyday life that one can feel "powerless" to control. Car accidents, heart attacks, you name it. Why the mental gyrations over "common sense" gun control but not other possibilities?
The only "common sense" gun control I would be willing to debate is the purchase/ownership of surface to air missiles, anti-tank weapons, grenades, etc. Maybe because of the Serenity Prayer? (God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,The courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.) if this is the case maybe change is the courageous course. Seems to me most of the reasons cited for not changing are based on fear ... Fear of tyrants, fear of criminals, fear of just not being allowed what one wants.
I'm amazed when I see references to other way we can die like traffic fatalities. The idea that we should regulate those and we don't But as I pointed out we do regulate everything regarding the auto industry. In everything else but guns we recognize there are inherent dangers and risks and attempt to reduce and mitigate them. But not guns. (And that is incredible because guns are the only things I can think of designed to kill stuff.)
Let me go on record, Me, I'm perfectly fine with any sane US citizen over the age of 18 owning any semi-auto weapon they want as long as it comes with a lock so a nut can't get their hands on it. And since I don't want (or think it will be effective to have) mandatory checks by law enforcement, that sane US citizen 18 years or older can still have any semi-automatic weapon they want as long as they lock it and accept unlimited financial liability for the damage they or their unsecured guns cause.
My personal answer to despots remains unchanged. That is distinct from the fact that the letter remains of serious worth.
These despots, who are they?
I think this Army Officer does a good job of poignantly laying out some of the dilemma of the issue as many Americans might see it today.
Richard :munchin
I can identify with this woman. My kids will be going to school soon. I agree that something needs to be done to address the problem with gun ownership and mental health. Who determines who's mentally fit to own or have access to a gun? I've talked to enough psychs to know I wouldn't want them playing God with my rights. Something needs to be done though I'm not sure what.
The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I'd feel much more comfortable knowing my kids attended a school with armed security but we can't afford that right?! :rolleyes: If it's good enough for Obama it's damn sure good enough for me. My kids are human beings with rights and they deserve the same protection the Obama's get. Obama works for us. That's something I think a lot of people forget!
Dozer523
03-22-2013, 15:35
If it's good enough for Obama it's damn sure good enough for me. My kids are human beings with rights and they deserve the same protection the Obama's get. Obama works for us. That's something I think a lot of people forget!Barrack Obama doesn't get Secret Service protection. The President does. When your kids are the President I'm sure they will get Secret Service protection but until then their human status does not entitle them to it.
That goes double for you, but feel free to request it. You never know, you might be just the sort the Secret Service wants to watch.
Barrack Obama doesn't get Secret Service protection. The President does. When your kids are the President I'm sure they will get Secret Service protection but until then their human status does not entitle them to it.
Why omit the sentence prefacing what you quoted? What I said makes a lot more sense when you read the whole thing. Our Nations' children deserve to live in a society that addresses societal issues with honest solutions. As a taxpayer, I have a problem when I read things like this:
Boeing refunded $76,849 after the inspector general determined it sold the Army a dime-sized, plastic ramp gate roller assembly used on the CH-47 helicopter for $1,678.61 apiece when the Pentagon Defense Logistic Agency had them in stock for $7.71 each.
Army Carbine Program May Waste $1.8 Billion (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41458)
A trillion dollars a year has been added to our National Debt since Obama took office. You can't tell me irresponsible spending can't be remedied to make our schools safer by adding security to our public schools.
I'd feel much more comfortable knowing my kids attended a school with armed security but we can't afford that right?!
That goes double for you, but feel free to request it. You never know, you might be just the sort the Secret Service wants to watch.
If the Secret Service wants to monitor me for speaking my mind then I guess I'll have to be monitored.
You can't tell me irresponsible spending can't be remedied to make our schools safer by adding security to our public schools.
Public schools (K-12) belong to their local communities and monitored/certified by individual state departments of education; they do not belong to the state or federal governments, and it is the community's responsibility to enact such measures as they - the communities - desire.
Many school districts do have armed RSOs (Resource Safety Officers) on campus; they did in the DFW area and one district I know of in North Texas allows specified staff/faculty to CCW on their district's campuses. Where I live now, which is the 5th largest school district in California and the largest in Northern California, there are RSOs on school campuses.
Communities have to ask themselves what it is they want, because you cannot rail against the perception of an encroaching controlling government on the one hand and decry its failure to provide something that has always been a local initiative and responsibility (and IMO should remain such) on the other.
Richard :munchin
Dozer523
03-23-2013, 00:07
Why omit the sentence prefacing what you quoted? What I said makes a lot more sense when you read the whole thing. ya mean THIS part? The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I'd feel much more comfortable knowing my kids attended a school with armed security but we can't afford that right?! :rolleyes:
Well, I'm glad you asked:rolleyes:
First, I think your first statement is nonsense. And I challenge you to come up with some statistically significant evidence that its true. Statistically significant might be say, 5% of a communities annual crime rate verifiably thwarted by a good guy with a gun.
Second, you're entitled to your own comfort level, so I don't think it is appropriate of me to critique your parenting. If janitors packing heat makes you feel your kids are safe good for you. The same goes for teachers with CCW, armed volunteers "patrolling" and a gun cabinet in the Principal's office.
But, I'll tell you this -- the vast majority of parents in my School District want no part of that and will take steps to prevent it. Those parents who may not like it are welcome to homeschool, go to a private school or move to some little district in Texas. What we have here works. So far. Now if we could make it impossible for a wacko to get their hands on a gun (Momma locks it) that would increase my comfort level. Until then I'll stick with the trained SROs in the Middle and High Schools, the security guy, the cameras, the locked doors, the police who stop by the parking lots, the training and drills conducted, and the dedicated teachers -- who will lock the doors and turn off the lights, and administrators -- who will sound the alarm at the first hint of trouble. Both of whom I believe will stand between my kid and a shooter.
But, that's just me.
Re-read Richard's post he knows a lot more about it than me.
"...we can't afford that right?" A right that guarantees safety in schools? That's not in the Bill.
Or did-ja mean:
"... we can't afford that, right?" You're correct; unless we're willing to give up something else.
I'm with you, I just want to regulate the insane scumbags who play Call of Duty with guns and live ammo. i think most of those calling for some improvements to our gun laws feel the same way.
Agreed, but the current "solutions" end up regulating me as well as the crazies. I recall many of the folks calling for "reasonable" gun control that will also negatively affect lawful gun owners were losing their collective minds some years ago over the PATRIOT Act, which was aimed at stopping insane scumbags planning to kill civilians with gun and bombs and airplanes but also had a possibility that a small number of non-terror-connected people might lose some of their privacy rights. My how things have changed...or not.
Next time you get in your car look around.
Do you have a driver's license? Mandatory personal training and periodic qualification
I don't recall having to undergo any periodic requalification or training after getting my civilian driver's license several decades ago. Regardless, since driving isn't a Constitutionally-protected right, let's compare apples to apples--which other right from the BOR requires personal training and periodic qualification?
Licence and registration? annual licensing and registration of vehicle
Primarily for tax purposes, since here in CO you don't even need to get an inspection to complete your annual registration--you just have to send in your money. What does that have to do with safety?
Minimum insurance? you are responsible for the damage by you and or your car
So are you saying I'm not responsible for any damage or harm I inflict with my firearms? Woohoo! Reckless neighborhood shooting spree here I come!
Auto emission check? vehicle serviceability and safety check
As stated above, that's a state or local requirement. Even different counties here in CO have different requirements for auto emissions. No federal regulations apply.
One way sign? restrictions on where cars can and cannot go
Again, are you implying there aren't any current restrictions on where I can take or use my guns? Are you sure about that? Really?
Toll booths? limited access
Federal property? GFSZA of 1990? Any business that posts a "no concealed carry" sign?
Speed limit signs? restrictions on how cars can be used
20,000 local, state and federal gun laws restricting how I can use my guns, where and how I can carry them, what guns I can and can't own...
Taxes on gasoline? pays for roads
Gun range and/or club fees to pay for the maintenance of the places where I use my guns.
Highway Patrol and other types of police? Random and ever present enforcement of existing regulations covering drivers and vehicles at state, county, community levels
Highway patrol and other types of police enforcing the existing regulations covering gun owners and guns at state, county and community levels, except just like with auto accidents they are rarely at the exact right time and place to prevent an event; rather, they deal with the aftermath of an event.
Meter maids fair use of temporary storage
Locker fees at my gun club for the fair use of temporary storage.
Seat belt? mandatory driver safety equipment
Built-in keyed action locks, magazine safeties, loaded chamber indicators, grip safeties, firing pin safety blocks, decockers--manufacturer design changes to address safety concerns.
Highway emergency call boxes (not so much anymore but) in place services and recognition that driving is inherently dangerous
Range safety regulations, gun laws addressing where one can shoot, range requirements for eye and hearing protection use, age restrictions on who can purchase firearms and ammunition, mandatory hunter safety classes to obtain a hunting license.
National Highway Safety Board, Department of Transportation? Federal regulation
BATFE, FBI, local/state law enforcement, NFA of 1934, GCA of 1968, FOPA of 1986, GFSZA of 1990, Brady Bill of 1993, AWB of 1994.
Formula One racers? we're not allowed to drive anything we want
NFA of 1934, GCA of 1968, FOPA of 1986--I can't own or use any gun I want.
Need more?
Nope; how 'bout you?
You don't like the choice of the number "one"?
Would you prefer 2,947? That's the number of children and teens who died from gunfire in 2008.
Or maybe 2,793? That's the number of children who died from gunfire in 2009.
How about 3,625? That is the peak number of child homicides committed in 1993.
Maybe 13,791? that is the number of children and teens who were injured by gunfire in 2009.
I have one more, 20,596. Thats the decade high (2000-2010) the number of kids injured by gunfire in 2008.
Ah yes, the BSN (Big Scary Numbers) defense. You don't happen to have the percentage of those numbers attributable to suicides, do you? How about the number of those deaths where the youth was shot and killed because he/she was engaged in a criminal act? Even better, the number of those kids that were shot by law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties? Without that kind of detailed analysis, tossing out numbers like that has a sort of Dentyne feel to it; you know, a "4 out of 5 liberals think that guns are scary and should be outlawed to make them feel better" sort of ring?
I'm looking for a similar study detailing children who die in traffic.
As for studies on stuff that kills kids, here are a couple of interesting ones that may be worth a look, and have some pretty current statistics:
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/teen_drivers/teendrivers_factsheet.html
Oddly enough, I haven't heard any calls for cars to be governed so they only go 25 mph, or banning fast sports cars, or mandatory installation of breathalyzers connected to car ignitions, or raising the driving age to 21, or limiting pools to a depth of 2 feet, or mandating anyone within 1000 feet of a body of water wear a life jacket.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,The courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference. if this is the case maybe change is the courageous course.
Then again, maybe no change is the more courageous course? Or perhaps embracing the serenity part is more applicable.
But as I pointed out we do regulate everything regarding the auto industry. In everything else but guns we recognize there are inherent dangers and risks and attempt to reduce and mitigate them. But not guns. (And that is incredible because guns are the only things I can think of designed to kill stuff.)
As I pointed out in a post above, you are completely incorrect that guns are not regulated, just as the statement above that "everything" about the auto industry is regulated, and that the only things designed to kill stuff are guns. What about bows and arrows, blades, poisons, traps, snares, etc.? You know the danger of absolutes, right?
Let me go on record, Me, I'm perfectly fine with any sane US citizen over the age of 18 owning any semi-auto weapon they want as long as it comes with a lock so a nut can't get their hands on it. And since I don't want (or think it will be effective to have) mandatory checks by law enforcement, that sane US citizen 18 years or older can still have any semi-automatic weapon they want as long as they lock it and accept unlimited financial liability for the damage they or their unsecured guns cause.
Cool, common ground! Just so we're clear, you know folks can legally own automatic weapons too, right? Oh, and what if I have a lock, but a nut still gets my gun and uses it for illegal purposes? Will I have unlimited financial liability if someone steals my car and runs down 20 kindergarteners in a playground, too? How 'bout if they steal my credit card, use it to buy stuff to make a bomb and then blow up a church service? Geez, what if someone hacks into my FB account, bullies someone and they commit suicide? Boy, I never realized I was accountable for all this bad stuff.
These despots, who are they?
Don't know who they are yet. What day and time is your house going to burn down? You don't know? Then why do you own smoke detectors and fire extinguishers?
The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
@Dozer, I think that for most of us, THAT good guy includes the trained SRO and police you mentioned.
ZonieDiver
03-23-2013, 07:42
Second, you're entitled to your own comfort level, so I don't think it is appropriate of me to critique your parenting. If janitors packing heat makes you feel your kids are safe good for you. The same goes for teachers with CCW, armed volunteers "patrolling" and a gun cabinet in the Principal's office.
I saw something about an elementary school that had created a place for LEOs to write reports, etc near the school office. Officers in Phoenix frequently stop at Circle K's, etc for bathroom breaks, and I see them in shopping center parking lots doing...well, whatever the hell it is they do there when the two cars are right next to each other facing different directions.
Why not have them pee at schools (in the office's restrooms, smartass :D) and write their reports, take their 'coop time' or whatever in school parking lots instead?
I think I've said elsewhere here, that on my latest HS campus - out of 150 or so faculty and staff - there were fewer than 10 I'd feel comfortable around if they were armed. (When I started teaching in 1975, it probably would have been 1/3 to 1/2 of the staff... how times change.)
Shooters pay some taxes.
Below is some information regarding some of the tax revenue generated by firearm and ammunition sales. The data is merely for one calendar year quarter - in 2011.
The sales data - and consequently the tax revenue generated - for the record sales in 2012 and early 2013 - should be substantially more robust.
Moreover, none of the numbers below reflect state and local sales tax collections on such firearm and ammunition sales (or components) - and such taxes exist in every jurisdiction IIRC - except 5 (OR, MT, NH, DE, AK). State tax rates vary, but can be as high as 7.5 %. However, when you add local rates on top of the overall state rate, what you pay can equal or exceed 9% in a couple of jurisdictions but let's just use an average rate of 6% or 6.5% for discussion purposes only, on each and every purchase of a firearm and ammunition (and component) sold at retail...and remember, that is on top of the excise tax illustrated below.
(Note: certain BATF regulated items would, of course, incur an additional stamp tax on top of the FAET and state and local sales taxes paid and collected).
**********************
Following are the results of the Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET) collections report for the 3rd Quarter Calendar Year 2011. These figures cover the period of July 1, 2011 through Sept. 30, 2011.
Pistols and Revolvers:
$32,082,580.88
Firearms (Other) / Long guns:
$40,449,622.34
Ammunition (shells & cartridges):
$44,225,090.60
TOTAL:
$116,757,293.82
Translation to sales:
Using the latest tax liabilities reported as an indication of sales, a projection of $1.09 billion was generated for the 3rd quarter calendar year of 2011.
Pistols and revolvers: $32,082,580.88 / .10 = $320,825,808.80 = $320.83 million for Pistols and Revolvers
Firearms (other) /Long guns: $40,449,622.34 / .11 = $367,723,839.50 = $367.72 million for Firearms (other)/ Long guns
Ammunition (shells & cartridges): $44,225,090.60 / .11 = $402,046,278.20 = $402.05 million for Ammunition (shells & cartridges)
Total estimation of sales for the quarter: $1,090,595,927.00.
*************
So, for one quarter in 2011...take the FAET tax paid ($116,757,293.82) and project that billion dollars in firearm and ammunition sales and multiply by an average sales tax rate of let's just say 6%...you do the math.
http://www.nssf.org/research/blasts/FAETCQ3_2011.htm
http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-and-local-sales-tax-rates-2011-2013
The Reaper
03-23-2013, 11:04
First, I think your first statement is nonsense. And I challenge you to come up with some statistically significant evidence that its true. Statistically significant might be say, 5% of a communities annual crime rate verifiably thwarted by a good guy with a gun.
Here you go:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[130]
* According to the CDC, there were about 18,498 gun-related accidents that resulted in death or an emergency room visit during 2001[131] (the earliest year such data is available from the CDC[132]). This is roughly 27 times lower than the CDC's 1994 estimate for the number of times Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes.[133]
I saw something about an elementary school that had created a place for LEOs to write reports, etc near the school office. Officers in Phoenix frequently stop at Circle K's, etc for bathroom breaks, and I see them in shopping center parking lots doing...well, whatever the hell it is they do there when the two cars are right next to each other facing different directions.
Why not have them pee at schools (in the office's restrooms, smartass :D) and write their reports, take their 'coop time' or whatever in school parking lots instead?
ZD, our high school is coordinating with the local PD to do exactly that. They've already set up a protected wireless channel for the police to use, and set aside a physical desk and chair to use if they want to get out of their patrol car for a few minutes. Discussions are currently underway to examine the need to start buying better quality coffee for the teacher's lounge, as well. I for one am very happy to see the school admin taking this kind of pro-active approach to building a relationship with local LE. Of course, I still periodically remind my kids of the various individual action options they need to consider if they're sitting in class and hear gunshots or an explosion close by.
I think I've said elsewhere here, that on my latest HS campus - out of 150 or so faculty and staff - there were fewer than 10 I'd feel comfortable around if they were armed.
Funny, I look the same way at the percentage of the total number of "teachers" at our school that I feel comfortable teaching my kids to an adequate degree of understanding.
Funny, I look the same way at the percentage of the total number of "teachers" at our school that I feel comfortable teaching my kids to an adequate degree of understanding.
Well, that's one of the main roots of the weed. Probably twice as many teachers are lib compared to otherwise. Nearly all reporters are, same as hollywooders. Musicians, too.
Kids are trained to believe it's OK for Heather to have two mommies, blowjobs aren't really sex, abortion is an easy way out of parental responsibility and the work ethic is a myth.
They rat on bullies instead of punching them in the teeth, and do their fighting on a monitor screen.
It's OK to ridicule Jesus, but don't even say anything negative about Mohammed or Kwanza-you'll be charged with a freaking hate crime.
The communists are winning without firing a shot, just as they said they would.
Team Sergeant
03-23-2013, 12:40
Well, that's one of the main roots of the weed. Probably twice as many teachers are lib compared to otherwise. Nearly all reporters are, same as hollywooders. Musicians, too.
Kids are trained to believe it's OK for Heather to have two mommies, blowjobs aren't really sex, abortion is an easy way out of parental responsibility and the work ethic is a myth.
They rat on bullies instead of punching them in the teeth, and do their fighting on a monitor screen.
It's OK to ridicule Jesus, but don't even say anything negative about Mohammed or Kwanza-you'll be charged with a freaking hate crime.
The communists are winning without firing a shot, just as they said they would.
Soon someone will be calling for a Prairie Fire.......
Soon someone will be calling for a Prairie Fire.......
Well, we "got 'em surrounded from the inside", for certain.
ZonieDiver
03-23-2013, 14:20
Well, that's one of the main roots of the weed. Probably twice as many teachers are lib compared to otherwise
I'm sure we've had this discussion before, but briefly, why did this happen. I assure you, in 1975 (granted it was in then 'rural' Chandler, AZ) over half of our faculty was definitely 'right of center' and at least 1/4 to 1/3 of the staff (which was mostly male - probably 70% - more if you excluded the English and Arts areas) were veterans... with many still actively involved in the NG or USAR.
Did 'they' take over, or did 'we' abdicate that field to 'them'?
I maintain it is as much the latter as it is the former. And for that, shame on 'us'!
I'm sure we've had this discussion before, but briefly, why did this happen. I assure you, in 1975 (granted it was in then 'rural' Chandler, AZ) over half of our faculty was definitely 'right of center' and at least 1/4 to 1/3 of the staff (which was mostly male - probably 70% - more if you excluded the English and Arts areas) were veterans... with many still actively involved in the NG or USAR.
Did 'they' take over, or did 'we' abdicate that field to 'them'?
I maintain it is as much the latter as it is the former. And for that, shame on 'us'!
The hippies turned into professors, got tenured, and trained herds of lib teachers. They just emerged around you and other straight-thinkig educators like psilocybin mushrooms in cow patties after a rain.
The Reaper
03-24-2013, 13:24
Some interesting stats about firearms accidents (where gun control advocates count felons rightfully shot by LEOs and people up to age 24 as "children").
TR
Some interesting stats about firearms accidents (where gun control advocates count felons rightfully shot by LEOs and people up to age 24 as "children").
TR
Those stats are worthless to libs, 'mano. They don't recognize cold, hard facts when arguing.
Stiletto11
03-24-2013, 16:08
The hippies turned into professors, got tenured, and trained herds of lib teachers. They just emerged around you and other straight-thinkig educators like psilocybin mushrooms in cow patties after a rain.
They procreate too and that doesn't help either.;)
Dozer523
03-24-2013, 16:24
TR, thanks for the research and graphs. Learned something.
Was there a total (deaths and injuries) to link the percentages to?
And what the heck are people falling from to cause that much damage?
The Reaper
03-24-2013, 16:36
You are welcome.
I copied the charts from the website I originally referenced.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Kids like to climb, so I guess the falls are consequences from that.
Looks like if you leave out the 15 year old and up "children" from the "Fatal firearm accidents in 2007 by age groups" portion of the stats, there are about 65 firearms related accidental deaths among children under 15 each year.
TR
Dozer523
03-24-2013, 17:23
Agreed, but the current "solutions" end up regulating me as well as the crazies.
So are you saying I'm not responsible for any damage or harm I inflict with my firearms? Woohoo! Reckless neighborhood shooting spree here I come! I am not saying that at all. And that though of you going so pink is difficult to imagine. What I meant is there is no mandatory insurance requirement for something as inherently dangerous as a gun. Unlike a car -- which is recognized as dangerous although not deliberately designed to be so. However, when liability insurance for guns is suggested there is the inevitable outcry that it is an infringement.
Razor, thank you for your reply. I recognize and accept all (but the highlighted above).
The post to which you thoughtfully replied was in response to an earlier post. The statement I was addressing was: rather then try to regulate gun ownership/use, .gov and "liberals" should regulate the auto industry IOT reducing the national fatality rate. My post was an attempt to point out that traffic fatalities are taken very seriously and a great deal of intrusive efforts have been foisted upon us in an effort to reduce those risks.
I addressed the post because it demonstrates a tactic commonly used when an attempt to discuss possible changes is brought up -- the first leg of the stool -- pointing to something else. I recognize that people die in car accidents, fall off of ladders (or somethings that is an amazing statistic) or that people drown a lot. In each of those cases (and all other cited in TR's chart) we accept that for the common welfare stuff should be made and operated in a way -- required to be made and operated -- in a way that is as safe as possible. And stuff -- ladders, swimming pools, bicycles, toys, etc are not meant to cause grievous bodily harm like guns.
And of course the next argument -- second leg -- is that the founders meant "no regulating" when they chose the word "infringed". Which considering that they could never in wildest imagination guessed just how dangerously those single shot muskets would evolve, is difficult to imagine. Nor did they ever imagine that our military would evolve to a point where the 'well-regulated militias" would be totally unnecessary.
And the third leg of the counter-arguement is: regulation will not work. Why? because no one will use a "mandatory lock", bad guys will just circumvent the law so law-abiding citizens shouldn't be subject to those laws because the laws aren't meant for them.
So I'll say it again. If it were me (and I really do think there are a lot of people out there like me) I will grant that only crazies kill innocent people. So, I'm for allowing any law-abiding US citizen over the age of 18 to own any and as many semi-automatic weapons as they want as long as 1) they undergo a background check to prove they are a law-abiding US citizen 18 years or older and 2) with the purchase of any semi-automatic weapon they are required to also purchase an effective gun lock, and 3) the gun-owner assumes complete financial liability for the damage they cause or that their gun causes in the hands of someone else.
What do you say? and why?
The Reaper
03-24-2013, 17:39
Dozer:
Background checks are already in place for 95% or more of the guns sold in this country.
AFAIK, all new guns are already sold with trigger locks. In NC, you have to sign a statement affirming that you understand the law with regards to keeping the weapon secured and out of the reach of minors.
I would draw the line with regards to liability insurance. You are required to have liability insurance on your car in the event YOU are involved in an accident. Not if someone ELSE steals your car and misuses it. Very few people here would agree that what we need in the country is more litigation. Should you be civilly liable if I steal your knife, axe, chainsaw, mower, etc? Why are guns any different? It doesn't matter how well you secure your weapons, if I was determined to get them, I could. Should you then lose your home and life savings as a consequence?
TR
Not if someone ELSE steals your car and misuses it. Very few people here would agree that what we need in the country is more litigation.
Exactly!
Directed at those whom dirty the gene pool:
And the lazy ass parents can spend the time with and teach their children to never touch a firearm unless Dad (or Mom) is there and tells them it's OK. You know your most important job, being a parent...
Dozer523
03-24-2013, 20:57
I would draw the line with regards to liability insurance. You are required to have liability insurance on your car in the event YOU are involved in an accident. Not if someone ELSE steals your car and misuses it. Very few people here would agree that what we need in the country is more litigation. Should you be civilly liable if I steal your knife, axe, chainsaw, mower, etc? Why are guns any different? It doesn't matter how well you secure your weapons, if I was determined to get them, I could. Should you then lose your home and life savings as a consequence?
TR Should I be civilly liable if someone steals anything of mine and uses it to cause any injury or damage? Absolutely not! Assuming I took reasonable precautions to prevent the theft. In the example of a car -- I think not leaving the keys in the vehicle and locking the doors and windows reasonably meets that criteria. We take greater care of our cars, perhaps because of the cost and value but we should be concerned about the possible misuse and damage if we fail to take basic common sense measures to secure them against theft.
Regarding less dangerous things your example of the knife, axe, chainsaw, mower i think a reasonable jury would find that if they were secured in a locked garage one would be reasonably exempt from liability. I don't think guns should be any different. If they are stolen but you have them secured with a lock you have acted in a reasonable and prudent manner to prevent misuse. I think it would be reasonable to assume the lock works. If the crazy steals the locked weapon and defeats the lock it would be wrong to hold a law-abiding gun-owner liable.
I agree that we don't want more litigation. A properly worded law would provide clear guidance . . . was the gun stolen? Was the gun locked when it was stolen? Answer yes to both, no liability.
Dozer523
03-24-2013, 21:07
And the lazy ass parents can spend the time with and teach their children to never touch a firearm unless Dad (or Mom) is there and tells them it's OK. You know your most important job, being a parent... I struggled with that one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUbiwYHLHSM
GratefulCitizen
03-24-2013, 21:17
Safety, like issues such as obtaining food and shelter, is an individual responsibility.
The 2nd Amendment isn't there to guarantee safety.
It is there to guarantee liberty.
I struggled with that one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUbiwYHLHSM
Yep, even though I've taught my young ones, weapons are still secured from them...
Common sense is less common these days...
Two entirely different legal standards illustrated:
Strict liability versus negligence.
We sometimes see calls for a strict liability standard to be applied to firearms ownership.
Strict liability:
...the gun-owner assumes complete financial liability for the damage they cause or that their gun causes in the hands of someone else.
Negligence:
If they are stolen but you have them secured with a lock you have acted in a reasonable and prudent manner to prevent misuse. I think it would be reasonable to assume the lock works. If the crazy steals the locked weapon and defeats the lock it would be wrong to hold a law-abiding gun-owner liable.
Strict liability versus negligence.
Not a treatise -- just a summary for illustration purposes:
The distinction is, however, important because some anti-gun commentators and members of the press blur the significant difference intentionally. Others, do so simply due to lack of knowledge.
Absolute liability with or without fault -- versus -- due care and a reasonableness standard.
Under a strict liability regime, if you duly lock your rifle in a gun safe, located in your locked, alarmed home, removed the firing pin - and your rifle is stolen by a crackhead and sold multiple times to multiple bad guys, and it ends up in the hands of the BATF, who then transfer your rifle to Mexican drug lords...and that rifle...your rifle, which was disabled, locked in a safe, inside your home, protected by an alarm but was, unfortunately, stolen by a crackhead, transferred multiple times, ending up in BATF hands, subsequently transferred to Mexican drug lords a la Fast and Furious and -- ultimately -- your rifle is used to harm someone...YOU ARE LIABLE.
In contrast, under a negligence standard a jury might be asked, among other things, to determine whether you used reasonable precautions in the example above, to safeguard your weapon. And, in today's world, there is still probably a small horde of hungry personal injury lawyers lined up to take the case on a contingent fee basis and either make a name or a small fortune or both -- at your expense. But, at least under a negligence standard of fault -- you have a system that should insulate you from civil liability (but, unfortunately, maybe not financial ruin, disaster and bankruptcy because of the legal costs required to mount an adequate defense).
Which system makes more sense for holding an owner of a firearm liable for misuse? Strict liability or a negligence standard?
You make the call.
More passionate support for the 2A.
Black conservative leaders discuss how the NRA was created to protect freed slaves
Short version:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9RABZq5IoaQ
Full version:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jKMi023Ofro&feature=relmfu
So are you saying I'm not responsible for any damage or harm I inflict with my firearms? Woohoo! Reckless neighborhood shooting spree here I come!
I am not saying that at all. And that though of you going so pink is difficult to imagine. What I meant is there is no mandatory insurance requirement for something as inherently dangerous as a gun. Unlike a car -- which is recognized as dangerous although not deliberately designed to be so. However, when liability insurance for guns is suggested there is the inevitable outcry that it is an infringement.
Sorry, I was going with the pink=sarcasm 'business rule'. I should probably have written my point more directly.
I think the problem with the auto/gun liability analogy you're presenting is that its essentially an apples and oranges argument. On the one hand, as we've discussed before, driving is a privilege vs. the right of gun ownership. We aren't required to buy liability insurance in order to post on the Internet, just in case we are sued for libel. Can you think of another Constitutionally-guaranteed right for which we need to buy insurance in order to exercise?
I understand that when it comes to end results dead is dead, but if we apply that standard to owning dangerous things then there is a long list of items one can own that would also require additional liability insurance, from pools to kitchen knives to dogs to antifreeze, regardless of their primary intended purpose, because as I said above dead is dead in the end, regardless of intended purpose.
Dozer523
03-26-2013, 18:49
Sorry, I was going with the pink=sarcasm 'business rule'. I should probably have written my point more directly.
I think the problem with the auto/gun liability analogy you're presenting is that its essentially an apples and oranges argument. On the one hand, as we've discussed before, driving is a privilege vs. the right of gun ownership. We aren't required to buy liability insurance in order to post on the Internet, just in case we are sued for libel. Can you think of another Constitutionally-guaranteed right for which we need to buy insurance in order to exercise?
I understand that when it comes to end results dead is dead, but if we apply that standard to owning dangerous things then there is a long list of items one can own that would also require additional liability insurance, from pools to kitchen knives to dogs to antifreeze, regardless of their primary intended purpose, because as I said above dead is dead in the end, regardless of intended purpose. I got what you meant in your pink comment, sorry my reply was misinterpreted I ws trying NOT to imagine you with a gun . . . crazy. . . in a tutu . . . anyway.
Apples and oranges in MY argument. I'm trying to eliminate them in the pro gun arsenal. I stated I meant only to address an earlier post that seemed to posit that this country's efforts to curtail unwanted deaths would be better served if we addressed traffic fatalities as if we were not doing so. I think even the posterchild would agree (then again, probably not) that there has been, continues to be, and we can expect in the future, significant and intrusive efforts by all levels of government, law-enforcement, non-profits -- my MOM for cryin' out loud!!! to TRY and further reduce traffic fatalities within the context of the beneficial purpose of vehicular traffic. I continue to see a link between the 1st amendment right of assembly as supporting ones access to the highways and byways and the various modes of accessing them . . . alas the founders could not envision anything but a walk, a horse or wagon ride. I'm working on it and when I'm a Justice . . . well I don't want to tip my hand.
Insurance. I concede there are no Bill of Right Amendments that require insurance. But, that doesn't mean there is no liability involved. I am responsible for what I say (BINGO!) What my comes of my assembly (conspiracy to commit) Watch what happens to the government when it violates MY rights (Mr Gideon?)
You are correct ,we are not required to have insurance for most things things. Usually, insurance is required by a lien-holder to protect their interest, after the bill is paid, the final mortgage payment made go ahead, cancel the insurance. When the house burns down or is swept away in the flood se la vie! Except for vehicles. Regardless of who has a financial stake if we want to access the public byways -- a minimum Liability insurance is required by law. And the reason why is because of the greater possibility of catastrophic damage and the potential for loss of life.
I am not required to have liability insurance for my knives, lawn-mower, dog. But I do and I am protected against the financial damage anything I have on my property can cause because my (bank required) home-owners policy is a good one. I have general coverage and I have specific additional coverage. My agent did a risk assessment and advised me in certain situations to get rid of stuff (Insurance companies hate trampolines -- if you have one check your policy injury on a trampoline might not be covered) or add specific coverages. It's prudent. Furthermore, I and my family are at a point in our lives and careers that we have nonspecific coverage.
Dead is dead. Since the potential for destruction, mayhem and innocents suffering -- as you say, "dead is dead" Sandyhook does raise the level of suffering endured in both magnitude and scope it seems intuitive that with rights must come responsibility. Thus my suggestion that 100% background checks (because I concede only crazies and criminals do bad things with guns so they have to be denied access. Mandatoy gunlocks to prevent crazies and criminals from getting the guns of law-abiding citizens and unlimited liability for the damage done by 1) a gun owner who switches side and becomes a crazy or a criminal and the damage done by a gun that a criminal gained access to from a legal owner because it was not properly locked.
Are those three things -- two of which TR points out are already available and required in many case -- and the acceptance of personal and unlimited liability for tightly defined preventable misuse a possible solution?
Black conservative leaders discuss how the NRA was created to protect freed slaves.
Does the NRA know this? :confused:
http://www.nrahq.org/history.asp
Richard :munchin
TR, thanks for the research and graphs. Learned something.
Was there a total (deaths and injuries) to link the percentages to?
And what the heck are people falling from to cause that much damage?
Probably trampolines. :D
We should outlaw those suckers.
Dozer523
03-26-2013, 19:18
Probably trampolines. :D
We should outlaw those suckers. Well according to Flo: http://www.geico.com/information/aboutinsurance/homeowners/insights/prevent-accidents/
Does the NRA know this? :confused:
http://www.nrahq.org/history.asp
Richard :munchin
Yeah, the title of the YouTube vid not my words - prolly gave more credit than due.
Hope you enjoyed the vids.
Mandato(r)y gunlocks to prevent crazies and criminals from getting the guns of law-abiding citizens and unlimited liability for the damage done by 1) a gun owner who switches side(s) and becomes a crazy or a criminal and the damage done by a gun that a criminal gained access to from a legal owner because it was not properly locked.
That's actually not unreasonable. I can see a mess with regard to the classification process (definition of "crazy" and "criminal") and with legality regarding the lock system (does DHS get the spare key?), but- those solutions could conceivably reduce the potentiality of the SH, Aurora and Columbine-style crimes.
Dozer523
03-27-2013, 07:57
That's actually not unreasonable. I can see a mess with regard to the classification process (definition of "crazy" and "criminal") and with legality regarding the lock system (does DHS get the spare key?), but- those solutions could conceivably reduce the potentiality of the SH, Aurora and Columbine-style crimes.
CALL 911, I'm having a heart-attack!!:D
CALL 911, I'm having a heart-attack!!:D
Don't get carried away. I'm not saying it's practicable, but it's hard to deny the logic in your premise.
Many would look at it from the standpoint that it's an incremental aspect of an overall attempt at total gun control, but if it could be made viable, and were in effect, it would obviously be preventive.
Some food for thought on the subject of firearms insurance at the link to the blog at the end of my post below.
Just off the top of my head I have a few of my own questions:
If firearms were to be covered by insurance -- would we be free to own whichever firearm that we want? That is, would there no longer be firearm, magazine or ammo restrictions? After all, we (firearms owners) would theoretically all be paying to insure against the risk of any misuse of all firearms in existence.
If we are required to insure our firearms against misuse - would we receive a credit for proper use in a lawful self-defense situation? What if a shot is not fired but the bad guy just runs away? How much credit? Since the underwriting of risk by a private firm is essentially a business decision, what are the variables that factor into cost? Is the perceived "lethality" of an EBR more expensive than a mint WWII era Garande? Should a fit octogenarian pay more than a twenty something unemployed OWS kid? What medical records would need be disclosed to underwriters? What about the uninsured motorist, I mean firearm owner? Fear not, I suspect that the actuaries already have the software "loaded."
Finally, would insurance have stopped Adam Lanza?
Some consideration of similar and other legitimate issues at the link below.
Should People Be Forced to Buy Liability Insurance for their Guns?
by Megan McArdle Dec 28, 2012 9:35 AM EST
DailyBeast
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/28/should-people-be-forced-to-buy-liability-insurance-for-their-guns.html
Badger52
03-27-2013, 08:43
If firearms were to be covered by insurance -- would we be free to own whichever firearm that we want?I don't think I can swing a vintage Ferrari 275 GTB, but on this other thing you're talkin' about...
What would my lease options be over 3 yrs on an M249? Please submit your proposal both baseline, as well as with extended warranty, and please include a schedule for consumables.
:D
I don't think I can swing a vintage Ferrari 275 GTB, but on this other thing you're talkin' about...
What would my lease options be over 3 yrs on an M249? Please submit your proposal both baseline, as well as with extended warranty, and please include a schedule for consumables.
:D
I can hear it now...;)
"...gotta close that insurance loophole..." ! :D
Dozer523
03-27-2013, 11:19
Some food for thought on the subject of firearms insurance at the link to the blog at the end of my post below.
Just off the top of my head I have a few of my own questions:
If firearms were to be covered by insurance -- would we be free to own whichever firearm that we want? That is, would there no longer be firearm, magazine or ammo restrictions? After all, we (firearms owners) would theoretically all be paying to insure against the risk of any misuse of all firearms in existence. From post # 305 "If it were me (and I really do think there are a lot of people out there like me) I will grant that only crazies (I want to amend this part to "crazies and criminals") kill innocent people. So, I'm for allowing any law-abiding US citizen over the age of 18 to own any and as many semi-automatic weapons as they want as long as 1) they undergo a background check to prove they are a law-abiding US citizen 18 years or older and 2) with the purchase of any (I want to amend this part from semi-automtic to "all") weapon they are required to also purchase an effective gun lock, and 3) the gun-owner assumes complete financial liability for the damage they cause or that their gun causes in the hands of someone else.
No change to the number or types of weapons currently allowed.
I'll throw in no magazine restrictions, too.
If we are required to insure our firearms against misuse - would we receive a credit for proper use in a lawful self-defense situation? What if a shot is not fired but the bad guy just runs away? How much credit? How about a tax deduction every year regardless of the legal use? Just tied to having mandated liability insurance. That is a valid concern, your proposal might be a little unwielding. How about a tax deduction every year tied to legal use?
Since the underwriting of risk by a private firm is essentially a business decision, what are the variables that factor into cost? Is the perceived "lethality" of an EBR more expensive than a mint WWII era Garande? Should a fit octogenarian pay more than a twenty something unemployed OWS kid? What medical records would need be disclosed to underwriters? What about the uninsured motorist, I mean firearm owner? Fear not, I suspect that the actuaries already have the software "loaded." Fear not, for sure.:) I would not push a government insurance program similar to Flood Insurance -- which is government sponsored because in flood situations the cost of the multiple damages is usually so great that independent insurer cannot cover the potential claims. We probably want to limit to the minimum degree .gov's involvement. In a competitive market underwriters and actuaries will accurately assess risk and assign premiums. The information needed for underwriting the policy would be subject to the "invisible hand" if one didn't like certain underwriting criteria they would go elsewhere and then make a decision based on factors like price. I imagine the more help a consumer provided to accurately assess the risk would be rewarded.
Finally, would insurance have stopped Adam Lanza?
Insurance alone? No. A lock? Probably. Would unlimited liability exposure been a factor in the first victim's decision to secure her weapons. The marketplace would say, "yes".
Don't get carried away. I'm not saying it's practicable, but it's hard to deny the logic in your premise.
Many would look at it from the standpoint that it's an incremental aspect of an overall attempt at total gun control, but if it could be made viable, and were in effect, it would obviously be preventive.
For a minute there I thought you were hitting the lightening..
Maybe when S&W perfect that electronic thingy and it can be installed on older weapons, that could be a good tool to keep the wrong persons from using them.
Though it would cause some tactical issues
Insurance alone? No. A lock? Probably. Would unlimited liability exposure been a factor in the first victim's decision to secure her weapons. The marketplace would say, "yes".[/QUOTE]
Please see attached videos from a quick qoogle search of "how to pick a trigger lock" neither one of them even requires an actual lock pick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P397UsoyNBc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad6W1Lef9To
The idea that even if my guns are in my locked home that is not good enough is ridiculous, even banks know that you can't have 100% security. If someone wants what you have bad enough they will find a way to get it.
I can't be liable for everyone else in the world.
If someone broke in and stole my ginsu knives and went on a stabbing spree should I be liable because I didn't have a sheath lock?
And as far as Lanza is concerned, if I am willing to kill my own mother I'm probably willing to force her to open the gun cabinet first.
There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.
The first is United States v. Miller 1939.
Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected.
Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45)
Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.
The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900.
In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him.
Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you.
Both of these cases are standing law to this day.
The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.
I didn't make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.
The Reaper
03-27-2013, 17:08
This is the way all 20,000 of the firearms laws we enjoy today started.
With a few "common sense" solutions from people who didn't understand the problem, if there even was one.
In 1913, the ratification of the 16th Amendment formalized the Federal Income Tax, which at first, was a very small percentage on most people. The majority of Americans supported it then. And Congress set the rates. Look at what we pay now. Relatively painlessly extracted monthly or bi-weekly since 1943. If Americans had to stroke a check for the full balance in one check annually, accountability might return.
One day in the not too distant future, when you are paying $500 per background check, a 100% tax on arms and ammunition, and $5,000 per year for liability insurance, you will be able to say, "Wow, I remember when it started out as a few "common sense" fees." It is all "for the children," of course.
Right off of the Brady Campaign's wish list.
They "allow" you an ever decreasing portion of a God given Right, while in reality restricting it further, and you are expected to be thankful. Death by 20,000 cuts and counting.
TR
From post # 305 "If it were me (and I really do think there are a lot of people out there like me)... and 3) the gun-owner assumes complete financial liability for the damage they cause or that their gun causes in the hands of someone else.
I appreciate your position and how it continues to evolve.
But, I also see that you are back to suggesting that a strict liability standard - as opposed to a reasonableness standard - be applied to firearm owners. That is an absolute non-starter for me, as well as most, if not all, lawful firearm owners.
The information needed for underwriting the policy would be subject to the "invisible hand"...
LOL, more like the dreaded "finger wave" ...but the unbelievably intrusive information that underwriters of such policies - will eventually require - will feel like the whole hand -- to law abiding firearm owners. I often deal with commercial insurers through my broker. IME, one little thing that makes an underwriter feel a wee bit squeamish... results in a limited number of companies writing that particular risk...and HUGE premium increases. No thanks. I have dealt with enough insurance companies to fall for this ruse.
It does sound like your goal really is to make owning firearms so expensive, onerous and intrusive so as to effectivley regulate a God given right - out of existence. TR nailed it.
This call for liability insurance appears to me to really be a typical bureaucratic answer to what is largely a crime and mental health problem.
Dozer523
03-27-2013, 19:15
Please see attached videos from a quick qoogle search of "how to pick a trigger lock" neither one of them even requires an actual lock pick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P397UsoyNBc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad6W1Lef9ToThank you for taking the time to find videos of trigger locks that don't work. Still, I'm not convinced it is impossible to prevent a weapon from firing. What if we tried to or wanted to develop a locking device that is hard to defeat? We were able to get people to and from the moon using slide rules.
TSBITF. We have a thread on locks and safes. for years QPs have purchased, used, evaluated and critiqued a variety of locks and safes. I trust a QPs opinion more then Better HouseKeeping and Consumer Digest.
The idea that even if my guns are in my locked home that is not good enough is ridiculous, even banks know that you can't have 100% security. If someone wants what you have bad enough they will find a way to get it. The most often cited reason for having a gun is home defense. The reason you have guns in your home is because you don't trust the locks on your doors and windows. Therefore, your locked home is not sufficient to protect your guns from criminals and crazies. Nancy Lanza's wasn't.
I don't get the impression you have ever actually seen a vault if you think bank vaults can be mechanically defeated from the outside. It is not nearly as easy as movies make it look (Oh, Kelly's Heroes. Yeah, that was easy . . but they needed a Tiger Tank. It's pretty hard.)
I can't be liable for everyone else in the world. And no one is asking you to. If you use your gun negligently you are liable. If you fail to take reasonable precautions (an effective locking device) to prevent a criminal or crazy from using it to kill or injure others you are liable. This proposal assumes you can be responsible for yourself. It's your gun. It's your responsibility.
If someone broke in and stole my ginsu knives and went on a stabbing spree should I be liable because I didn't have a sheath lock?Before you post you ought to read some of the previous posts, or at least read the post you are commenting on. I am discussing guns, not Ginsu knives, or your chainsaw or your lawnmower. That has been addressed.
And as far as Lanza is concerned, if I am willing to kill my own mother I'm probably willing to force her to open the gun cabinet first.Lanza's mother's guns were not secured. If she had secured them, she might still be alive. Or maybe her son would have killed her with a Ginsu knife but still not gotten the guns.
Maybe, we would be calling Nancy Lanza a hero.
Or maybe she would have given the guns to her son and he would have let her live. I hope not, I like to think people faced with that choice will be courageous. In any case her gun security was negligent and she would be fully liable. Her guns, her responsibility.
Dozer523
03-27-2013, 19:44
. . . more like the dreaded "finger wave". . . I probably should not have used the phrase "Invisible Hand" for someone who may not have heard it before. The "Invisible Hand" is an economic analogy for how the marketplace sets a fair price for everything.
It does sound like your goal really is to make owning firearms so expensive, onerous and intrusive so as to effectivley regulate a God given right - out of existence. Quite the contrary. I want every law-abiding US citizen 18 years of age or older to be able to own as many of the currently allowed weapons (up to and including semi-automatic weapons and those special cases where permits are allowed). l want them to accept the responsibility that comes with owning them -- thatt they accept that if they do not take reasonable steps to prevent criminals and crazies from using those weapons to kill or injure innocent people.
Effective locks are a way to prevent misuse.
This call for liability insurance appears to me to really be a typical bureaucratic answer to what is largely a crime and mental health problem.Insurance is how we protect ourselves from the financial effects of a catastrophic loss caused to or by something we own. I suppose one can take that risk. But due to the severity and scope of negligence in this case I think mandated insurance is appropriate. After all time and time again, events prove the ineffectiveness of voluntary programs. I wholly agree this is a criminal and mental health problem and this proposal is directed only at preventing criminals and crazies from getting a weapon.
I'm willing to listen to a better idea that prevents criminals and crazies from getting access to guns and turning them on innocent people. It's just got to work. Whatcha got?
Whatcha got?
IMO, the 8 points set forth in the original letter that is the subject of the original post in this thread is a solid step in the right direction on all fronts. I encourage everyone to go back and re-read that post. I pasted those suggestions below for readers who may have stumbled across this thread late.
In addition to the 8 recommendations below - I believe that as much gun violence is gang/drug/crime related - that saturation patrols of known gang shooting areas be considered. I will leave it to the law enforcement experts to devise a strategy to accomplish the mission of getting guns out of the hands of criminals. Consider tougher sentencing for those already with a criminal record and stick to it...have a criminal record and use a gun in a crime and add a mandatory 20 years...no chance at parole...second offense...40 years...shooters be off da street like Chi-town voters...early and often.
Simply stated, read and heed the steps below and I suggest that politicians and others focus time, money and effort on stopping criminals and the mentally ill and not further burdening the law abiding. If anyone wants to voluntarily buy more insurance, to "protect themselves from the risk of catastrophic loss..." please have at it.
IMO, mandating the purchase of firearms insurance by an otherwise sane, law abiding citizen will not stop a criminal or a crazy from obtaining and misusing a firearm.
YMMV.
From the letter in the OP:
So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect. These are as follows:
1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.
3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.
4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful "Eddie the Eagle" program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.
5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be "sold" as entertainment to our children.
6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.
7. We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.
8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.
Thank you for taking the time to find videos of trigger locks that don't work. Still, I'm not convinced it is impossible to prevent a weapon from firing. What if we tried to or wanted to develop a locking device that is hard to defeat? We were able to get people to and from the moon using slide rules.
TSBITF. We have a thread on locks and safes. for years QPs have purchased, used, evaluated and critiqued a variety of locks and safes. I trust a QPs opinion more then Better HouseKeeping and Consumer Digest.
The point was that common trigger locks, the second video was a masterlock (very common) are easily defeated. So now you want to mandate that people seek out some unknown lock which can't be defeated. Remember in this scenario the guns are already stolen therefore the criminal has unlimited time to work on defeating the lock.
Even if he can't beat the lock are we going to make it out of such a metal that can not be drilled or cut given enough work?
How expensive would this be? So essentially you would be forcing me to buy this protection along with the gun. Also those are the types of trigger locks that come with some guns. Should the manufacturer be liable for the criminal as well if they defeat the lock?
If you have such an unbeatable lock I would be glad to T&E and see if I can get it off. I am not by no means an expert but I'm willing to bet I could.
The most often cited reason for having a gun is home defense.....
Exactly, I don't trust the locks on the doors or the windows because I know that if someone is determined to get in they will, just like a lock on a gun.
The point of mentioning the bank is that banks are aware that even with all the security they put in place they are still at risk to be robbed. 100% security doesn't exist. Thanks about the info on the safe though I always thought you just needed a stethoscope
And no one is asking you to...
I have no problem being liable for how I use MY gun. I have a problem with your assertion that my firearms being on my private property is not enough and that I should be liable for the criminal actions of someone else who committed crimes to get them from me..
Being in my locked home is a reasonable precaution. Burying them in a safe with a 20 pound unbeatable lock on them is not reasonable for the average person.
Before you post you ought to ...
Not really addressed you just said you aren't talking about those things.
My assertion is that you are trying to mandate a liability on a stolen tool. The knives or my chainsaw or lawnmower are just other tools I own, they can cause death or injury. Yet most would not expect someone to be held liable for a knife stolen from their home and then used to commit a crime. Why should the gun be any different?
Lanza's mother's guns were not secured.....
That's a lot of maybes. Also, I would call guns put away in a closet in a large locked up home in a good neighborhood reasonably secured. Not everyone knows someone is going to be a mass murderer. It's easy to point fingers after the fact, but if all the so called family friends really thought this boy was a killer then why aren't they liable for their negligence.
Remember it was your premise that gun owners should be held liable for the criminal actions of a third party even if the guns were stolen from your home. The courts disagree with you.
I agree with what others have said that this is just a stepping stone to making gun ownership essentially unaffordable for the common man.
Do you honestly think the founding fathers would have agreed with this conversation? That if someone broke into your home and stole your shotgun and then shot someone with it you were liable?
...Insurance is how we protect ourselves from the financial effects of a catastrophic loss caused to or by something we own. I suppose one can take that risk. But due to the severity and scope of negligence in this case I think mandated insurance is appropriate. After all time and time again, events prove the ineffectiveness of voluntary programs. I wholly agree this is a criminal and mental health problem and this proposal is directed only at preventing criminals and crazies from getting a weapon.
I'm willing to listen to a better idea that prevents criminals and crazies from getting access to guns and turning them on innocent people. It's just got to work. Whatcha got?
Insurance generally protects us from financially significant losses due to accidents or unintentional acts.
Your very assertion here that ties gun owner liability insurance to preventing "criminals and crazies" from getting a weapon doesn't make any sense and is the sort of punitive nonsense directed at law abiding gun owners, which has nothing to do with lowering the incidence of gun violence and everything to do with making gun ownership prohibitively expensive and financially onerous.
To tie your call for liability insurance for law abiding gun owners to the future unknowable acts of "criminals and crazies" who procure those weapons through the commission of a criminal act (burglary/theft) in the first place is laughable...
This is the same sort of thinking that has been extrapolated out to the nth degree in that now there are some people calling for the legal seller of a weapon (gun shop owner, etc.) to carry liability insurance to "pay" for any illegal acts or injury committed by any buyer and/or weapon sold and used in the commission of a crime in the future...madness
In this same vein are the ammunition taxes that some states have contemplated, which would cause the price of ammunition to rise astronomically and be cost prohibitive for many law abiding gun owners to buy in any meaningful quantities (Massachusetts: 25% tax; Maryland: 50% tax, etc.).
Old Dog New Trick
03-28-2013, 00:01
So who would determine the rates for this "liability" insurance? Will it be required on each weapon or the whole collection?
Do I get a discount if I only have 10-round mags, and do I have to pay more to own 15, 20, or 30-round mags?
Is it dependent on where I live, what state, what neighborhood I live in - high crime or low crime rate? Will my costs be prorated (adjusted) to cover other areas of the country as flood and hurricane insurance is done?
Is a .22 less than .223, or a .38 less than a .357-Magnum?
If they are all locked up in a GSA approved class III or IV safe bolted to the ground do I get a 10% discount yearly? Multi-Weapon discount? Discounts for military service, law enforcement training or classes taught by other professionals?
This whole idea is ludicrous and flies in the face of Constitutional rights.
Dozer you are making the argument that freely owning the weapons one can afford is a privilege and not a right.
The courts have agreed and supported that an individual has the inaliable right to self-defense under the reasonableness standard of law. Therefore "liability" rests with the court decision to find a person guilty or not guilty of a crime. It does not however protect a person from civil liability and he may be on the hook for any and all damages incurred to the victim or property.
Which only logically means that someone who choses to carry outside the home a gun for personal defense or professionally should invest in personal liability insurance should the need arise. A home owner protecting his castle should not be burdened by such nonsense as laws and doctrine are well established to provide the protections necessary for the homeowner or renter.
I just can't see where you are going with forcing otherwise law abiding people with another hurdle to jump over to exercise a right granted in the BOR.
I'm fed up with paying auto insurance for five different vehicles when I, or my wife can only operate one or two at the same time while the others sit patiently by waiting for their turn to be operated. It's the same racketeering that would be used if something like this would be passed in legislation by lobbyists for the insurance companies and foisted upon an unsuspecting populace. Give an inch and soon it will be unaffordable to own or possess any weapons by the common man. And then you will have created - the uninsured firearms owner...which means all the others will pay extra to cover the costs of all criminal use of a gun.
JMHO
Maybe teachers should carry liability insurance in case one of their student 'learns' badly...
Maybe teachers should carry liability insurance in case one of their student 'learns' badly...
OR:
We should make our elected officials carry liability insurance in case they SCREW UP the country.
OOPS! No one wold underwrite that one. :D
Better yet make everyone who doesn't have a gun in their home carry liability insurance. Then make them liable when someone breaks in their house and beats the crap out of them or worse and that person/persons get away with it. Once they get away with it the offending individuals are going to do the same thing to someone else most likely and they should be liable for that right?.
Locking a firearm is prudent and practical.
Insuring for liability is prudent but not practicable.
Dozer523
03-28-2013, 13:29
Were having a Humphrey Bogart - Claude Raines moment.Locking a firearm is prudent and practical.
Insuring for liability is prudent but not practicable.Dusty is ri. . . correct. Oh heck he's Right too.
The Reaper
03-28-2013, 17:19
Insurance generally protects us from financially significant losses due to accidents or unintentional acts.
Your very assertion here that ties gun owner liability insurance to preventing "criminals and crazies" from getting a weapon doesn't make any sense and is the sort of punitive nonsense directed at law abiding gun owners, which has nothing to do with lowering the incidence of gun violence and everything to do with making gun ownership prohibitively expensive and financially onerous.
To tie your call for liability insurance for law abiding gun owners to the future unknowable acts of "criminals and crazies" who procure those weapons through the commission of a criminal act (burglary/theft) in the first place is laughable...
This is the same sort of thinking that has been extrapolated out to the nth degree in that now there are some people calling for the legal seller of a weapon (gun shop owner, etc.) to carry liability insurance to "pay" for any illegal acts or injury committed by any buyer and/or weapon sold and used in the commission of a crime in the future...madness
In this same vein are the ammunition taxes that some states have contemplated, which would cause the price of ammunition to rise astronomically and be cost prohibitive for many law abiding gun owners to buy in any meaningful quantities (Massachusetts: 25% tax; Maryland: 50% tax, etc.).
Well said, BKK and ODNT.
This is merely another step in the march toward making firearms ownership unaffordable for all but the very wealthy, and the eventual total disarmament of the American people.
TR
On the subject of Liability Insurance for guns, did it cross anyone's mind that it would require firearms to be registered (a dream of the gun grabbers) with the state and/or Feds? And probably as with your auto, you would be in a searchable data base and be required to pay yearly property tax to maintain your registration.
Guaranteed some in the insurance lobby is pushing for this cash cow.
On the subject of Liability Insurance for guns, did it cross anyone's mind that it would require firearms to be registered (a dream of the gun grabbers) with the state and/or Feds? And probably as with your auto, you would be in a searchable data base and be required to pay yearly property tax to maintain your registration.
Guaranteed some in the insurance lobby is pushing for this cash cow.
That's why it's not practicable.
The Reaper
03-28-2013, 18:10
On the subject of Liability Insurance for guns, did it cross anyone's mind that it would require firearms to be registered (a dream of the gun grabbers) with the state and/or Feds? And probably as with your auto, you would be in a searchable data base and be required to pay yearly property tax to maintain your registration.
Guaranteed some in the insurance lobby is pushing for this cash cow.
Or lawyers.
TR
Team Sergeant
03-29-2013, 08:53
Thank you for taking the time to find videos of trigger locks that don't work. Still, I'm not convinced it is impossible to prevent a weapon from firing. What if we tried to or wanted to develop a locking device that is hard to defeat? We were able to get people to and from the moon using slide rules.
TSBITF. We have a thread on locks and safes. for years QPs have purchased, used, evaluated and critiqued a variety of locks and safes. I trust a QPs opinion more then Better HouseKeeping and Consumer Digest.
The most often cited reason for having a gun is home defense. The reason you have guns in your home is because you don't trust the locks on your doors and windows. Therefore, your locked home is not sufficient to protect your guns from criminals and crazies. Nancy Lanza's wasn't.
I don't get the impression you have ever actually seen a vault if you think bank vaults can be mechanically defeated from the outside. It is not nearly as easy as movies make it look (Oh, Kelly's Heroes. Yeah, that was easy . . but they needed a Tiger Tank. It's pretty hard.)
And no one is asking you to. If you use your gun negligently you are liable. If you fail to take reasonable precautions (an effective locking device) to prevent a criminal or crazy from using it to kill or injure others you are liable. This proposal assumes you can be responsible for yourself. It's your gun. It's your responsibility.
Before you post you ought to read some of the previous posts, or at least read the post you are commenting on. I am discussing guns, not Ginsu knives, or your chainsaw or your lawnmower. That has been addressed.
Lanza's mother's guns were not secured. If she had secured them, she might still be alive. Or maybe her son would have killed her with a Ginsu knife but still not gotten the guns.
Maybe, we would be calling Nancy Lanza a hero.
Or maybe she would have given the guns to her son and he would have let her live. I hope not, I like to think people faced with that choice will be courageous. In any case her gun security was negligent and she would be fully liable. Her guns, her responsibility.
How very liberal of you to place the blame on everyone except the coward that did the killing.
So if I follow your "logic" when some entitlement punk steals your "unsecured" car and takes it for a joyride, killing an entire family while being chased by police, we should blame the car owner instead of the punk that stole the car.
Lanza's mother had nothing to do with him killing little kids, Lanza did that all on his own.
Let that sink in before you post about gun locks again. Your argument stinks.
Badger52
03-30-2013, 11:52
Homeowner shoots, kills man during burglary attempt
Burglary suspect's sister says brother was 'good guy'
Well of course she does.
Comments are most enlightening; scroll down for the one where someone dumped this "good guy" rapsheet.
LINK to full story. (http://www.local10.com/news/Homeowner-shoots-kills-man-during-burglary-attempt/-/1717324/19502448/-/11esg1w/-/index.html)
Homeowner shoots, kills man during burglary attempt
Well of course she does.
Comments are most enlightening; scroll down for the one where someone dumped this "good guy" rapsheet.
LINK to full story. (http://www.local10.com/news/Homeowner-shoots-kills-man-during-burglary-attempt/-/1717324/19502448/-/11esg1w/-/index.html)
Not exactly garnering a lot of sympathy in those comments is he?
Surgicalcric
03-30-2013, 23:53
Good riddance.
Where are these stories when the Pres is on the campaign trail trying to garner support for more restrictions on our rights.
Old Dog New Trick
03-31-2013, 09:17
Good riddance.
Where are these stories when the Pres is on the campaign trail trying to garner support for more restrictions on our rights.
It doesn't fit their agenda!
"Give the people what "WE" want." :rolleyes:
Dozer523
04-01-2013, 11:53
You have to admit, that I managed to push that rock pretty far up the hill. I managed that by being respectful to the members of this board who I know have deeply held beliefs.
And for those of you who extended me the same courtesy, my thanks.
Stiletto11
04-01-2013, 15:58
It doesn't fit their agenda!
"Give the people what "WE" want." :rolleyes:
You mean stuff it down their throat?:D
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/2/un-passes-international-arms-regulation-treaty/
With the Obama administration supporting the final treaty draft, the General Assembly vote was 154 to 3, with 23 abstentions.
Iran, Syria and North Korea voted against it. Sounds right!
Critics of the treaty were heartened by the U.S. Senate’s resistance to ratifying the document, assuming President Obama sent it to the chamber for ratification.
In its budget debate late last month, the Senate approved a non-binding amendment opposing the treaty offered by Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, with eight Democrats joining all 45 Republicans backing the amendment
Guns Save Lives
Thomas Sowell
Townhall.com
4/2/2013
"The gun control crusade today is like the Prohibition crusade 100 years ago. It is a shared zealotry that binds the self-righteous know-it-alls in a warm fellowship of those who see themselves as fighting on the side of the angels against the forces of evil. It is a lofty role that they are not about to give up for anything so mundane as facts-- or even the lives of other people."
<snip>
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2013/04/02/creators-oped-n1554735/page/full/
From what I've read, I don't think this treaty will have any effect on our rights but just in case.
Stiletto11
04-02-2013, 18:31
From what I've read, I don't think this treaty will have any effect on our rights but just in case.
You must be joking:munchin
We each have our own journey...an interesting opinion piece. CNN no less.
A mother's journey to bearing arms
CNN iReport
By Tracy Scarpulla, Special to CNN
updated 11:24 AM EDT, Tue April 2, 2013
"Over the 11 years of our marriage, I slowly learned about guns. I began to accept that the gun itself posed no danger -- any danger was in the hand and heart of the beholder. I learned there were safe ways to teach your children about guns. Guns were a tool like any tool; they have multiple purposes and uses. I learned more about our Constitution and our rights as U. S. citizens. I learned I had nothing to fear and a lot to gain from owning a gun."
"I think mothers need to educate themselves and learn how to best educate their kids. I work with a lot of other mothers, and many of them are shocked that I was taught how to shoot. I understand because I was there at one point -- I was scared of guns. But I no longer fear them."
"So Mr. Obama and your gun control advocates: I am not physically capable of stopping a 200-pound man from raping me or my daughters. I am not physically capable of stopping a 200-pound man from entering my home and doing what he may. However, my gun is very capable of stopping such a criminal if such an act were to occur."
"We live in a society where no one is there to protect us. The police come after the crime, not before. I do not have 24/7 armed protection like you do, Mr. President. Neither do my children."
"So until you can explain to this nation why your old city of Chicago has rising murder rates by guns, despite some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, I will continue to support the NRA, I will continue to urge others to support the Second Amendment and I will continue to vote for those politicians that support my views. I will also support the notion of placing armed police, veterans, etc. in our schools."
"Why should your children, Mr. President, be of the select few children in this country who are protected by armed guards? Why are your children more special than mine?"
<snip>
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/02/opinion/mother-guns-commentary-irpt/index.html?hpt=hp_c3
I am all torn up
“They said they were going to kill me,” Maloney said of the threats, according to the New York Daily News. The liberal Democrat, the paper reported, received three calls within about an hour on Tuesday night.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/03/democrat-behind-mandatory-insurance-for-gun-owners-bill-claims-shes-getting-threats/
“They said they were going to kill me,” Maloney said of the threats, according to the New York Daily News. The liberal Democrat, the paper reported, received three calls within about an hour on Tuesday night.
Maybe she should get some insurance...
Stiletto11
04-03-2013, 20:15
Maybe she should get some insurance...
Only three calls? Geeze!
You must be joking:munchin
I am not joking I just said I didn't think it would have an effect. If you know something I don't I'd like to hear what you know.
fusion94
04-04-2013, 16:54
Sen Feinstein,
The amount of disrespect and contempt that you have for our Military Veterans both present and past borders on unintelligent discourse.
With statements like this:
“The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transfer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member or veteran and there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this.”
You completely show your ignorance for veterans and for PTSD in general.
Senator, If us veterans did our job half as bad as you do yours we would all be dead right now. This country trusted us to use our weapons to defend them. War is terrible, and we have to live with that, but we are far better equipped to handle any firearm than you. We are not some rabid dog that you must put down.
We have committed no crime worthy of the suspicion you obviously hold towards us. We are citizens of the United States of America and we have more than earned the right to be treated with respect by our duly elected officials.
Old Dog New Trick
04-04-2013, 18:56
Sen Feinstein,
The amount of disrespect and contempt that you have for our Military Veterans both present and past borders on unintelligent discourse.
With statements like this:
“The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transfer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member or veteran and there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this.”
You completely show your ignorance for veterans and for PTSD in general.
Senator, If us veterans did our job half as bad as you do yours we would all be dead right now. This country trusted us to use our weapons to defend them. War is terrible, and we have to live with that, but we are far better equipped to handle any firearm than you. We are not some rabid dog that you must put down.
We have committed no crime worthy of the suspicion you obviously hold towards us. We are citizens of the United States of America and we have more than earned the right to be treated with respect by our duly elected officials.
👍
I wonder if she feels the same way about the "Greatest Generation" returning from WWII and Korea, or those sent to Vietnam?
She really is the real deal when it comes to being nut. Would like to hear the reply you receive.
Only three calls? Geeze!
Not yet quite enough to warrant a six-Pak for celebration.....YET
fusion94
04-05-2013, 08:05
👍
I wonder if she feels the same way about the "Greatest Generation" returning from WWII and Korea, or those sent to Vietnam?
She really is the real deal when it comes to being nut. Would like to hear the reply you receive.
I sent that to her on 3/11/2013 and have yet to receive a reply. Not even an automated form reply.
Badger52
04-07-2013, 10:19
There is another thread regarding state & local initiatives but I think this follow-up ties nicely to one of the core suggestions made herein. Some snippets:
-----------------
A concealed handgun training class envisioned by former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle before his death drew hundreds of educators to a Texas school auditorium Saturday.
More than 700 teachers and administrators attended the all-day session on gun laws and safety at Kennedale High School in Dallas-Fort Worth area, The Dallas Morning News reported.
...
Leah Smith, a first-grade teacher who attended Saturday's training class, told the Fort Worth Star Telegram she supports arming teachers who receive proper training.
"More protection can't hurt," she told the paper. "Maybe it would save lives."
Complete article here. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/07/hundreds-texas-educators-take-free-handgun-class/?test=latestnews)
There is another thread regarding state & local initiatives but I think this follow-up ties nicely to one of the core suggestions made herein. Some snippets:
-----------------
A concealed handgun training class envisioned by former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle before his death drew hundreds of educators to a Texas school auditorium Saturday.
More than 700 teachers and administrators attended the all-day session on gun laws and safety at Kennedale High School in Dallas-Fort Worth area, The Dallas Morning News reported.
...
Leah Smith, a first-grade teacher who attended Saturday's training class, told the Fort Worth Star Telegram she supports arming teachers who receive proper training.
"More protection can't hurt," she told the paper. "Maybe it would save lives."
Complete article here. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/07/hundreds-texas-educators-take-free-handgun-class/?test=latestnews)
Outstanding. This needs to get contagious.
nousdefions
04-08-2013, 13:20
Colt Competition .... Welcome to Texas!
And bring your Constitutional minded friends with you. (But you can leave left-leaning ones at the Red River, you Okies will know how to deal with 'em....)
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/04/05/firearms-company-relocating-to-north-texas/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/08/communism_survivor_blasts_gun_control_you_dont_kno w_what_freedom_is.html
Paragrouper
04-08-2013, 18:56
Colt Competition .... Welcome to Texas!
And bring your Constitutional minded friends with you. (But you can leave left-leaning ones at the Red River, you Okies will know how to deal with 'em....)
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/04/05/firearms-company-relocating-to-north-texas/
Well then, might be time to dust off my resume. :)
Wanna reduce crime and violence...maybe we could ask the police how they fell about all these proposed and enacted gun laws.
http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-findings-on-officers-thoughts/
Burger King diner defeats would-be robber by shooting him (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/8/burger-king-diner-defeats-would-be-robber-shooting/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS)
Badger52
04-08-2013, 20:59
Wanna reduce crime and violence...maybe we could ask the police how they fell about all these proposed and enacted gun laws.
http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-findings-on-officers-thoughts/Nice! Beat me to it; a friend retired from a nearby department sends me this companion link to the PDF if someone wants the actual electrons of the survey:
Link at this page to the PDF (http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6188462-PoliceOnes-2013-Gun-Policy-Law-Enforcement-Survey-Results-Executive-Summary/)
Most illuminating.
GratefulCitizen
04-11-2013, 20:36
Long way to go in the information war.
:(
Video was made to demonstrate the level of gun ignorance.
Sheep to the slaughter.
http://youtu.be/2diNojgJF9c
miclo18d
04-12-2013, 05:42
Wanna reduce crime and violence...maybe we could ask the police how they fell about all these proposed and enacted gun laws.
http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-findings-on-officers-thoughts/
I found the last question to be telling to the major problem and the thread on moral relativism...
11.) While some officers say gun violence in the United States stems from violent movies and video games (14 percent), early release and short sentencing for violent offenders (14 percent) and poor identification/treatments of mentally-ill individuals (10 percent), the majority (38 percent) blame a decline in parenting and family values.
This country is quickly walking away from family and Christian values and these shootings are just one symptom. People are believing that Feedom = hedonism. There is no freedom without strong morals, just anarchy, which leads to slavery.
Dozer523
04-12-2013, 07:10
This country is quickly walking away from family and Christian values and these shootings are just one symptom. People are believing that Feedom = hedonism. There is no freedom without strong morals, just anarchy, which leads to slavery.on the news was a spot about a mega- church leader who has found it in his heart to forgive the guy who sold his son an unregistered gun over the Internet.
His son used it to commit suicide.
I don't care it was unregistered, I'm not in favor of registration. But a transfer conducted by a licensed dealer including a background check might have revealed the ministers son to be a bit unbalanced. And the transfer could have been delayed. Maybe that the son was buying a gun would have come as a red flag to someone. I don't know. just wondering, bring it. Sigh.
Destrier
04-12-2013, 08:29
I guess the ministers son does not know how to use a rope, car exhaust, fall from a bridge, bath tub hot water and razor blades. Criminals and crazies do not follow laws. They find tools. The ministers son found a tool that a guy was willing to sell. He could have just as soon sold him a length of rope.
miclo18d
04-12-2013, 08:59
The minister's son could have also driven himself to a really bad section of town and purchased a gun even if there were more stringent standards of background checks.
***callousness alert***
I feel bad that the kid (and kids in general) couldn't look past his nose or have someone to help him along but I have little sympathy for him. I'm just glad he didn't take anyone else with him.
Perhaps we should praise suicideds that only harm the person doing it. Shame people for mass killings. A little PsyOp experiment.
Team Sergeant
04-12-2013, 10:24
on the news was a spot about a mega- church leader who has found it in his heart to forgive the guy who sold his son an unregistered gun over the Internet.
His son used it to commit suicide.
I don't care it was unregistered, I'm not in favor of registration. But a transfer conducted by a licensed dealer including a background check might have revealed the ministers son to be a bit unbalanced. And the transfer could have been delayed. Maybe that the son was buying a gun would have come as a red flag to someone. I don't know. just wondering, bring it. Sigh.
Sorry charlie, Matthew engaged in criminal activity and purchased a gun from a criminal and killed himself. How do I know that?
And just so you can understand "Only criminals sell guns with serial numbers scratched off." Got that?
There's not a gun law in on the books that will stop "CRIMINALs"...... screw that let's punish the law abiding citizens for someone elses criminal behavior. Liberal left wing socialist logic to me.
“We can’t tell if it’s registered or not because the serial number is scratched off,” Amormino said. “At one point in time, it may have been, but it’s going to be impossible to find out.”
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/12/17719128-rick-warren-son-who-killed-himself-had-unregistered-gun?lite
on the news was a spot about a mega- church leader who has found it in his heart to forgive the guy who sold his son an unregistered gun over the Internet.
His son used it to commit suicide.
I don't care it was unregistered, I'm not in favor of registration. But a transfer conducted by a licensed dealer including a background check might have revealed the ministers son to be a bit unbalanced. And the transfer could have been delayed. Maybe that the son was buying a gun would have come as a red flag to someone. I don't know. just wondering, bring it. Sigh.
He would have just used a rope.
Badger52
04-12-2013, 11:41
Recalling the attempted distraction & disssembling of turncoat politicians, with rhetoric such as "no, this isn't going to keep 2 hunting buddies from selling each other a gun" - "this is just to close the gun-show loophole and get a handle on internet sales" etc., ad nauseum.
Here's the relevant section of S.649, the much-ballyhoo'd "moderate" "bi-partisan" compromise:
`(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee's inventory to the unlicensed transferee.
`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
`(A) bona fide gifts between spouses, between parents and their children, between siblings, or between grandparents and their grandchildren;
`(B) a transfer made from a decedent's estate, pursuant to a legal will or the operation of law;
`(C) a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if--
`(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed transferor;
`(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and
`(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days; and
`(D) a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title made in connection with lawful hunting or sporting purposes if the transfer occurs--
`(i) at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting range;
`(ii) at a target firearm shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by a State agency or nonprofit organization and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting competition; or
`(iii) while hunting or trapping, if--
`(I) the activity is legal in all places where the unlicensed transferee possesses the firearm;
`(II) the temporary transfer of possession occurs during the designated hunting season; and
`(III) the unlicensed transferee holds any required license or permit.
`(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `transfer'--
`(A) shall include a sale, gift, loan, return from pawn or consignment, or other disposition; and
`(B) shall not include temporary possession of the firearm for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective transferee while in the presence of the prospective transferee.
`(4)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations.
`(B) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph--
`(i) shall include a provision setting a maximum fee that may be charged by licensees for services provided in accordance with paragraph (1); and
`(ii) shall include a provision requiring a record of transaction of any transfer that occurred between an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee accordance with paragraph (1).'.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendments-
(1) SECTION 922- Section 922(y)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended, in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking `, (g)(5)(B), and (s)(3)(B)(v)(II)' and inserting `and (g)(5)(B)'.
(2) SECTION 925A- Section 925A of title 18, United States Code, is amended, in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking `subsection (s) or (t) of section 922' and inserting `section 922(s)'.
(3) NICS IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENTS ACT- Section 103(f) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 is amended by striking `section 922(t)' and inserting `section 922(s)'.
(4) CONSOLIDATED AND FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012- Section 511 of title V of division B of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended by striking `subsection 922(t)' and inserting `section 922(s)' each place it appears.
Maybe I missed it. Anyone see up there an exception for 2 free people who are not prohibited persons engaging in a 1 to 1 act of sale of property?
PDF of the full text of this POS is here. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/t2GPO/http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s649pcs/pdf/BILLS-113s649pcs.pdf)
MR2: Guillotine's not on the NFA list yet, you may have something there.
Badger52
04-12-2013, 13:46
Often we don't hear about the defensive gun uses because they get buried in the court system and don't meet the MSM's dicta of "if it bleeds it leads." Here's one the Journal-Sentinel followed up on:
A college student whose string of armed store robberies ended when he was shot by a customer who had just gotten a Wisconsin concealed carry permit was sentenced Thursday to eight years in prison.
The Jan. 30, 2012, shooting inside an Aldi grocery was the first such bystander crime intervention since Wisconsin became the 48th state to allow concealed carry just two months earlier.
The customer - Nazir Al-Mujaahid - was not charged with any crime and emerged as a high-profile gun rights advocate, even as he tangled with authorities up to and through Thursday's sentencing for the return of his 9mm handgun. The gun had been seized as possible evidence in the case.
...
[Judge] Moroney first expressed the idea Al-Mujaahid's gun should be kept in police custody in case Cotton appealed.
But Monroe argued Al-Mujaahid's gun has nothing to do with Cotton's crime and even if it did, his client would be more than happy to produce it for prosecutors if and when needed. Meanwhile, Monroe said, Al-Mujaahid remains deprived of his property and concerned for his own safety.
Persuaded, Moroney agreed he would sign an order requiring police to return the gun to Al-Mujaahid in its holster and without requiring a separate case.
Monroe then left to take depositions in a federal civil rights lawsuit Al-Mujaahid and Wisconsin Carry Inc. filed months ago over the slow return of his gun, and the general practice in Milwaukee County of making lawful gun owners "engage in formal litigation to recover their seized property."
LINK to full story here. (http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/man-wounded-in-armed-robbery-attempt-gets-eight-years-in-prison-n99h71g-202619001.html)
on the news was a spot about a mega- church leader who has found it in his heart to forgive the guy who sold his son an unregistered gun over the Internet.
His son used it to commit suicide.
I don't care it was unregistered, I'm not in favor of registration. But a transfer conducted by a licensed dealer including a background check might have revealed the ministers son to be a bit unbalanced. And the transfer could have been delayed. Maybe that the son was buying a gun would have come as a red flag to someone. I don't know. just wondering, bring it. Sigh.
I have a few questions:
1) What was the age of the son? To legally buy a rifle or shotgun, one must be 18; to buy a handgun one must be 21. So if it was a legal sale, the "kid" was in fact a legal adult (at least 18 if the gun he bought was a rifle, older if it was a pistol).
2) Was the seller a resident of the same state as the son? Did the sale take place face-to-face? Unless the sale was a face-to-face private sale between residents of the same state, then a background check would be required for the sale to be legal.
3) Had the son at any time been found legally disqualified to own a gun by a mental health professional? Unless this was true, his name would not trigger any alerts during a federal background check that would delay or prevent the sale.
The Reaper
04-12-2013, 17:23
on the news was a spot about a mega- church leader who has found it in his heart to forgive the guy who sold his son an unregistered gun over the Internet.
His son used it to commit suicide.
I don't care it was unregistered, I'm not in favor of registration. But a transfer conducted by a licensed dealer including a background check might have revealed the ministers son to be a bit unbalanced. And the transfer could have been delayed. Maybe that the son was buying a gun would have come as a red flag to someone. I don't know. just wondering, bring it. Sigh.
While I am not exactly sure how you send a gun to someone "over the internet," no one in their right mind, will ship a gun to anyone other than a licensed FFL.
It is highly illegal, and I have heard that the package companies screen for that sort of contraband.
It would have been difficult to even offer a weapon for sale on the internet, since most websites like ebay and craigslist have banned firearms sales, even through licensed dealers.
If they met on the internet, the fact that he had a gun for sale was communicated, and the seller agreed to transfer it to him face to face, he was again breaking the law by not requiring proof of age before transferring the firearm.
Defacing a serial number is a serious Federal crime. Another violation.
Why could the son not have been equally successful by going to a dealer, and buying a weapon, with the background check, which he could have likely passed, before killing himself with it?
Or, as noted, used a rope, knife, car, tall building, bathtub, etc.?
I guess I must have missed something in 15-6 class, because I do not see the weapon as the proximate cause of the death. The person who pulled the trigger is.
TR
Badger52
04-12-2013, 19:17
If you are a Dillon customer, stop ogling Deandra on the cover of the latest Blue Press and turn to Page 20.
:lifter
Dozer523
04-13-2013, 00:58
http://www.assistNews.net/stories/2013/s13040069.htm
TR and Razor,
Here is an article on the incident, most of the questions raised are addressed, except obviously, why didn't he use another method. I'm not being a smart ass here when I say because with a gun he probably thought he had the most effective way to accomplish his task -- quick, painless, . . .
This is a tragedy. If not preventable, it shouldn't be as easy as it was.
But because its a gun, no preventative action is acceptable? Is the position that the current level and severity of gun violence an acceptable cost of doing business? I don't get that.
How do we slow this down?
I think if you listen to the people in the middle are asking, "how do we al least reduce the deliberate misuse of guns?" They really aren't talking about taking your gun? Honestly.
Streck-Fu
04-13-2013, 05:55
They really aren't talking about taking your gun? Honestly.
Unfortunately the legislators/politicians are not in the middle and many are really trying to take them. I don't care what individual citizens are saying. I do care about what law writers are doing.
http://www.assistNews.net/stories/2013/s13040069.htm
I think if you listen to the people in the middle are asking, "how do we al least reduce the deliberate misuse of guns?" They really aren't talking about taking your gun? Honestly.
Not yet. The libs' ultimate goal is confiscation. At the present, they have to satisfy themselves with chipping another tiny piece off the block of freedom.
Dozer523
04-13-2013, 06:55
They really aren't talking about taking your gun? Honestly.
They really aren't talking about taking your guns.
Sorry, should have been a period not a question mark.
The libs won't have complete control until the means to resist has been taken away from the general populace. They don't care about saving any kids, it's a device. They go by FM 13666, Alinsky's Rules.
If they cared about kids getting killed, they'd implement existing legislation in meccas like Chicago, where rules aren't enforced, but guns are "nonexistant".
Seriously, it's beyond me how anybody could fail to see the hypocrisy, and not understand that any and all restrictive legislation has absolutely zero effect on a criminal, including the Newtown psycho, who wants to get a gun and commit mayhem.
Take the guns away from everybody, to include criminals, and they'll use exacto knives, poison, whatever-but we as a "free" people won't be able to resist a tyrannical government-the ultimate goal of libs.
...How do we slow this down?
Dozer this is to answer the question and NOT addressed to you personally.
1. Enforce the laws currently on the books.
- If a LEA doesn't enforce the laws, ALL federal funding will cease. This includes funding to the federal LEAs as well.
2. Ensure that the mental health protocols are followed.
- The treating physicians report their concerns to the appropriate authorities and those authorities are responsible (within the due process parameters of the Constitution). If the competent authorities fail to do their job, all federal funding will cease.
3. If measures 1 and 2 fail to entice those charged above to execute their responsibilities, those same will reimburse all federal funding received by the same to the peoples of the Republic.
Layman's terms: Do your f#*@ing job.
Dozer this is to answer the question and NOT addressed to you personally.
2. Ensure that the mental health protocols are followed.
- The treating physicians report their concerns to the appropriate authorities and those authorities are responsible (within the due process parameters of the Constitution). If the competent authorities fail to do their job, all federal funding will cease.
They're in the process of attempting to change the protocol so that the physician can arbitrarily determine whether his patient should be reported as subject to guidelines which would prevent him from owning a gun. Another battle front in the lib's war on freedom.
They're in the process of attempting to change the protocol so that the physician can arbitrarily determine whether his patient should be reported as subject to guidelines which would prevent him from owning a gun. Another battle front in the lib's war on freedom.
That is why we must protect the Constitution. And that is why I stated "within the due process parameters of the Constitution."
That is why we must protect the Constitution. Yes, I know I said it before (it, the Constitution, deserves it, as do our founding fathers).
That is why we must protect the Constitution. And that is why I stated "within the due process parameters of the Constitution."
That is why we must protect the Constitution. Yes, I know I said it before (it, the Constitution, deserves it, as do our founding fathers).
I'll never argue with that.
The Reaper
04-13-2013, 10:12
http://www.assistNews.net/stories/2013/s13040069.htm
TR and Razor,
Here is an article on the incident, most of the questions raised are addressed, except obviously, why didn't he use another method. I'm not being a smart ass here when I say because with a gun he probably thought he had the most effective way to accomplish his task -- quick, painless, . . .
This is a tragedy. If not preventable, it shouldn't be as easy as it was.
But because its a gun, no preventative action is acceptable? Is the position that the current level and severity of gun violence an acceptable cost of doing business? I don't get that.
How do we slow this down?
I think if you listen to the people in the middle are asking, "how do we al least reduce the deliberate misuse of guns?" They really aren't talking about taking your gun? Honestly.
I believe that people with weapons with obliterated serial numbers should go to jail.
I think that people who ship guns directly to unlicensed buyers on the internet should be arrested.
I believe that both of those things are already illegal, and yet someone did it anyway. Someone who had probably already been arrested for crimes already. Likely repeatedly. The person who did this was probably out of jail between sentences.
I believe that people should not commit suicide. At the same time, those who want to will find a way, such as inmates in a facility where they have no access to weapons, still manage to kill themselves.
Finally, I believe that punishing lawful gun owners by creating new, more onerous laws, and restricting Constitutionally guaranteed rights, when we already don't enforce the tens of thousands of gun laws we have on the books, is like beating your dog because the neighbor's dog shit in your yard.
Punishing law-abiding gun owners, violating their Rights, or making them criminals is not going to bring any of those children back, no matter how many laws you pass, nor do they prevent the next crazed scumbag from using a gun, car, propane tanks, gasoline, poison, chlorine gas, ANFO, machete, baseball bat, dynamite, or box cutter to kill his victims. Or from committing suicide by any of the hundreds of ways that do not require firearms.
Diagnosing and treating (in some cases, yes, incarcerating) mental illness might, but that is not as popular as infringing on law-abiding citizen's Second Amendment rights.
So let's all bend over and take it in the shorts because we refuse to deal with the real problem. I am sure all of us military and former military remember how well mass punishment works.
TR
Ambush Master
04-13-2013, 10:41
On one of the Sunday Morning Shows a couple of weeks ago, Wayne LaPierre rebutted comments made earlier by Mayor Bloomberg that were so astounding, they defied any argument!! Of the many points he made he pointedly chastised the media including those with whom he was speaking, why have they not thought to question why Chicago, with some of the most onerous Laws against Firearms, had the highest gun violence stats, but was dead last when it came to Prosecutions for Firearms Violations!! The Laws are out there, but the Liberal Governments won't enforce them, they'd rather spend their time trying to strip the rights from the Law Abiding!!
Later
Martin
I believe
et all TR :lifter
I believe that "I believe" is a powerful statement.
Should a second Supporting The Second Letter (or series of letters) come to fruition, I believe it should focus around that .
I've said it on this thread before. This isn't about protecting anyone or stopping future events. It is about power and control. You can't do what you were born to do if the masses can defend themselves from you.
Javadrinker
04-15-2013, 16:58
I believe that people with weapons with obliterated serial numbers should go to jail.
I think that people who ship guns directly to unlicensed buyers on the internet should be arrested.
I believe that both of those things are already illegal, and yet someone did it anyway. Someone who had probably already been arrested for crimes already. Likely repeatedly. The person who did this was probably out of jail between sentences.
I believe that people should not commit suicide. At the same time, those who want to will find a way, such as inmates in a facility where they have no access to weapons, still manage to kill themselves.
Finally, I believe that punishing lawful gun owners by creating new, more onerous laws, and restricting Constitutionally guaranteed rights, when we already don't enforce the tens of thousands of gun laws we have on the books, is like beating your dog because the neighbor's dog shit in your yard.
Punishing law-abiding gun owners, violating their Rights, or making them criminals is not going to bring any of those children back, no matter how many laws you pass, nor do they prevent the next crazed scumbag from using a gun, car, propane tanks, gasoline, poison, chlorine gas, ANFO, machete, baseball bat, dynamite, or box cutter to kill his victims. Or from committing suicide by any of the hundreds of ways that do not require firearms.
Diagnosing and treating (in some cases, yes, incarcerating) mental illness might, but that is not as popular as infringing on law-abiding citizen's Second Amendment rights.
So let's all bend over and take it in the shorts because we refuse to deal with the real problem. I am sure all of us military and former military remember how well mass punishment works.
TR
Very well Sir, and thank you for it. It now looks like "they" are going for both and all without any due process(if some of the amendments get through)
Today at the last minute was asked to pick up my son at the bus stop in rural Montana... 45mins later I get a call from the Transportation Safety Officer asking if I possibly had a firearm in my back pocket, I said yes it's my backup. He then said I shouldn't do that, my response was why and that I've had a permit for twenty years.
I told him I'd hide it but if le is called I'll call my attorney...
Pretty surprised this BS is happening here of all places..Pharisees
But because its a gun, no preventative action is acceptable? Is the position that the current level and severity of gun violence an acceptable cost of doing business? I don't get that.
No, I completely agree--the fact that the pastor's 27 year old, mentally handicapped son killed himself hours after interacting well with the pastor and his wife is a real tragedy. I can't even begin to imagine the grief and anguish and "if I only" self-interrogations those parents are experiencing right now.
My disagreement lies with the idea that by infringing even more on my Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, this adult would not have killed himself. I completely reject that idea, as there is no logical method to prove this as true. If the son had bought three cans of compressed air (completely legal, as he was over 18) and died from huffing, would his death then be acceptable? Would the federal government begin taking action to ban all aerosol products "for public safety"? I don't believe so.
As for the 'cost of doing business', we've gone 'round and 'round on this, but I stand by my previous points that there are many, many more causes of death (that aren't a Constitutionally-guaranteed right) of both youth and adults that we as a society accept for convenience. Why should gun violence be treated any differently, except that gun owners are a smaller group than the rest of US society, so its easier to blame them and restrict them than address the larger, more directly-attributable factors. Kids have committed suicide due to bullying on social media--I haven't seen anyone call for licensing and registration requirements to post on Facebook or to use Twitter. Go figure...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/marylands_second_amendment_nightmare_coming_soon_t o_a_state_near_you.html
This is result of Maryland's SB 281 just passed the General Assembly.
But what really might kill gun ownership in Maryland is the new training, fingerprinting, and licensing requirements for owners of regulated firearms. With the MSP already denying rightful gun owners their weapons for up to two months (or more), the newer regulations promise to bring the system to a grinding halt. Would-be pistol owners now will have to not only take an eight hour classroom training course, but actually hit the range to be certified and licensed. And since Maryland has relatively few shooting ranges, the likelihood of this process moving along in anything like an efficient and effective manner is nil.
I am a member of the IWLA in Frederick, Md. I know for a fact that our chapter Master Trainer and several others have and continue to train with NRA certs.
All of our trainers have taken the MSP course and are certified by the state now.
Got a call from the Under Sheriff today regarding previously posted incident to verify permit information. BTY: happen to respect him
In any event it's a new procedure due to nuts whom should be committed. He said he'd call the school so the bus doesn't speed by when I'm at the bus stop waiting for my son...
Team Sergeant
04-16-2013, 14:14
Got a call from the Under Sheriff today regarding previously posted incident to verify permit information. BTY: happen to respect him
In any event it's a new procedure due to nuts whom should be committed. He said he'd call the school so the bus doesn't speed by when I'm at the bus stop waiting for my son...
Fear motivates sheeple. We're going to see a lot of this sort of fear and knee-jerk reaction for the next year or so. Fear also moves agendas, as a former advisor to the Teleprompter Reader once said, "Never waste a crisis". Between New Town and Boston were going to see a lot of polictics being played (at teh cost of Freedom).
Bills being voted on right now in Sacramento
Live Stream (http://www.calchannel.com/live-webcast/)
Dozer523
04-16-2013, 18:18
. . . as a former advisor to the Teleprompter Reader once said, "Never waste a crisis". Between New Town and Boston were going to see a lot of polictics being played (at teh cost of Freedom).The entire quote is, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste.And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." i guess that could sound ominous if one is convinced any change will come at their personal expense (I'm not sure the American tradition of compromise, free enterprise and separation of powers allows that to play out.)
Here's another great quote but from the President himself, ""You know, I was campaigning in Chicago and somebody asked me, is there ever any time where the budget might have to go into deficit? I said only if we were at war or had a national emergency or were in recession. Little did I realize we'd get the trifecta." —President George W. Bush, Charlotte, North Carolina, Feb. 27, 2002
Sometimes folks say stuff they wish people got the way they meant it, not the way they wanted to hear it.
TS,
Didn't even need a permit where I was according to MT law, I was cooperative anyway.
When he asked how I was doing 'thrilled and over joyed' was the answer :rolleyes:
PS..Fear, those that let it consume their common sense would be better served by doing nothing...see quote below...ain't living' if you ask me
Dozer523
04-16-2013, 18:28
.. . .Would-be pistol owners now will have to not only take an eight hour classroom training course, but actually hit the range to be certified and licensed. And since Maryland has relatively few shooting ranges, the likelihood of this process moving along in anything like an efficient and effective manner is nil.Please explain to me how one is a member of a well-regulated militia without training on his/her weapon?
Apparently you have no faith in the free market system, a scarcity of available ranges will drive up the cost of range time leading to entrepreneur building more (and better) ranges thereby eliminating the scarcity which will in turn drive down the cost of range time.
Dozer523
04-16-2013, 18:36
. . . .. They go by FM 13666, Salinsky's Rules..
Do you mean Sal Alinsky? www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
It's an interesting read in a wacky way but here it is, peruse and draw your own conclusion. Interesting.
I'm not sure I'm tracking the 13666 reference, weak googl-fu, perhaps.
Peregrino
04-16-2013, 18:38
Oh - you mean like "Carpe Diem"? As in "we don't need the usual long term strategy of a death of a thousand cuts, we'll just steer the stampeeding sheeple over the cliff they wouldn't normally go near". All of the quote, part of the quote; I don't have any problem understanding RE's espousal of Progressive Doctrine. I'm just surprised he said it where hostile witnesses might repeat it to the relative few who understand the evils of progressivism.
The Reaper
04-16-2013, 19:16
Do you mean Sal Alinsky?
No, I think he means Saul Alinsky.
TR
Do you mean Sal Alinsky? www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
It's an interesting read in a wacky way but here it is, peruse and draw your own conclusion. Interesting.
I'm not sure I'm tracking the 13666 reference, weak googl-fu, perhaps.
Good catch, Dozer! I fixed it.
I was talking about Saul Alinsky, the radical community dis-organizer who wrote the "manual" for other agitators like Obama and Hillary Clinton, and dedicated it to the "greatest radical of all time, Satan." Hence the 13666 reference. But, good catch, anyway!
Paragrouper
04-16-2013, 20:31
Please explain to me how one is a member of a well-regulated militia without training on his/her weapon?
Apparently you have no faith in the free market system, a scarcity of available ranges will drive up the cost of range time leading to entrepreneur building more (and better) ranges thereby eliminating the scarcity which will in turn drive down the cost of range time.
Where is this free market system? Certainly not in Maryland. There are limited ranges because it is difficult to start a range, given to cost, zoning restrictions and local regulations. These conditions will continue to hinder additional ranges opening. If not, I'm sure the Maryland Legislature will be happy to address that situation.
The law places onerous requirements and additional cost on the general population, which will limit the ability of many, particularly the poor, to have legal access to firearms and enjoy the whole firearms ownership experience. I'm sure that is the point of the law. It also provides a mechanism to gather data on those who possess firearms--just in case.
I guess the poor can just buy theirs on the black market, which I certain will expand in certain states like MD, NY, CT, etc... (gotta love that free market)
Please explain to me how one is a member of a well-regulated militia without training on his/her weapon?
Apparently you have no faith in the free market system, a scarcity of available ranges will drive up the cost of range time leading to entrepreneur building more (and better) ranges thereby eliminating the scarcity which will in turn drive down the cost of range time.
In your scenario I would put my money on the EPA trumping the free market system.
The Reaper
04-16-2013, 20:56
In your scenario I would put my money on the EPA trumping the free market system.
Exactly.
Very few new ranges are being built today, but a lot are being closed.
TR
Badger52
04-17-2013, 03:50
The law places onerous requirements and additional cost on the general population, which will limit the ability of many, particularly the poor, to have legal access to firearms and enjoy the whole firearms ownership experience. I'm sure that is the point of the law. It also provides a mechanism to gather data on those who possess firearms--just in case.
I guess the poor can just buy theirs on the black market, which I certain will expand in certain states like MD, NY, CT, etc... (gotta love that free market)That's in the X-ring. This has been tried before back before the emergence of the semi-auto with laws targeting the evil "Saturday Night Special." Then it was about small carryable revolvers. Result was the same; low-income folks who need to defend themselves the most, often because of where they live, are denied that. So they go elsewhere. Result is exactly counter to the rhetoric of the desired goal. It's BS, plain and simple and in many areas downright racist in its effect, harming a class they purport to regard as their base. Utter horsehockey.
Go Devil
04-17-2013, 06:27
Exactly.
Very few new ranges are being built today, but a lot are being closed.
TR
Good point.
Early risers get range time here. Any arrival past 9 am on a weekend and you'll have to wait up to an hour for a position.
I believe ranges will be a good trolling spot collectivist minions as gun control takes hold.
Fortunately, in Indiana, county property is currently not restrictive on firearms/fireworks.
We built the following on my brothers property just outside of city limits.
We have smaller models for rimfire in the barn.
#383
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3518&page=26
miclo18d
04-17-2013, 06:44
Please explain to me how one is a member of a well-regulated militia without training on his/her weapon?
Apparently you have no faith in the free market system, a scarcity of available ranges will drive up the cost of range time leading to entrepreneur building more (and better) ranges thereby eliminating the scarcity which will in turn drive down the cost of range time.
Perhaps we can get an explanation of how someone becomes well regulated without a weapon to train with. Not to mention the fact that you forgot the second half of the Second Amendment, The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.. Don't forget that pesky comma between "State" and "the".
Shall not be infringed would mean things like unnecessary burdens placed on the citizens to be able to keep and bear arms. Nowhere in the US Constitution is there a requirement to have 8 hours of training to own a firearm. Should we say you can only post on the Internet if you only have passed a class on political correctness so that you don't offend someone?
Team Sergeant
04-17-2013, 07:50
Please explain to me how one is a member of a well-regulated militia without training on his/her weapon? Apparently you have no faith in the free market system, a scarcity of available ranges will drive up the cost of range time leading to entrepreneur building more (and better) ranges thereby eliminating the scarcity which will in turn drive down the cost of range time.
Not to worry weapons is one of my specialties. There's folks like me that will train such a militia and get them up to par in short order.
"Perhaps we can get an explanation of how someone becomes well regulated without a weapon to train with."
Or Ammo¿
Dozer523
04-21-2013, 02:52
Shall not be infringed would mean things like unnecessary burdens placed on the citizens to be able to keep and bear arms.
Nowhere in the US Constitution is there a requirement to have 8 hours of training to own a firearm.
Should we say you can only post on the Internet if you only have passed a class on political correctness so that you don't offend someone?I've come to realize that the infringement clause really means I am allowed to do whatever I want without any personal responsibility, because everything is an "unnecessary burden".
The founding fathers were visionaries not forecasters. They also seemed to have faith in future generations that we could figure out the changes that go along with progress. As much as I laugh at the youtube videos of people who can't correctly discharge weapons I still think knowing proper technique is a good idea if just for those around.
I wonder how life would be if "shall not be infringed" had been the word choice in the other Amendments especially 1,4 and 5.
"Perhaps we can get an explanation of how someone becomes well regulated without a weapon to train with. Or Ammo? don't look at me. I'm for allowing any weapon you want as long as its use is well-regulated for proper use.
don't look at me. I'm for allowing any weapon you want as long as its use is well-regulated for proper use.
Along with liability insurance and mandatory locking, what do you consider "well-regulated"? :munchin
In my mind as well as, I would hope, in the minds of other Americans, the responsibility rests with the owner of the gun. The security measures, safety in use, where the bullets go, what's behind the target-everything on the range briefing, basically-is a job for the owner, and not a governmental regulator.
The primary duty of the gun owner is to make sure that the only person who uses the weapon is one he personally authorizes to use it, or himself. Secondarily, it has to be used safely. He needs to keep his firearm out of the hands of someone who would use it in a manner in which it shouldn't be used. Same as a knife, black powder, castor beans, gasoline and spider spray-anything potentially lethal to other humans.
The reason libs want regulation is because further restrictions get them closer to their ultimate goal-confiscation. Then, they don't have to worry about insurrection.
Peregrino
04-21-2013, 07:33
A minor modification to Dusty's post:
Along with liability insurance and mandatory locking, what other requirements would you impose on law-abiding citizens in order to meet your "well-regulated" criterion? :munchin
Given that the rest of us understand "shall not be infringed" to mean precisely that.
Given that the Supreme Court has already recognized "unnecessary burden" as a detriment/deterrent to the free exercise of guaranteed rights.
Team Sergeant
04-21-2013, 08:47
I've come to realize that the infringement clause really means I am allowed to do whatever I want without any personal responsibility, because everything is an "unnecessary burden".
The founding fathers were visionaries not forecasters. They also seemed to have faith in future generations that we could figure out the changes that go along with progress. As much as I laugh at the youtube videos of people who can't correctly discharge weapons I still think knowing proper technique is a good idea if just for those around.
I wonder how life would be if "shall not be infringed" had been the word choice in the other Amendments especially 1,4 and 5.
don't look at me. I'm for allowing any weapon you want as long as its use is well-regulated for proper use.
You mean like they do in "gun free zone" Chicago.....:munchin
This weeks Huffington Magazine has several articles focusing on Guns & Politics.
CLOSE TO THE HEART: The debate that's still too sensitive to touch.
By SAM STEIN, HOWARD FINIMAN, CHRISTINA WILKE & EMILY SWANSON
As well as the usual political bigotry.
Found on discriminatory Books Shelf's everywhere...
VFW Post sign in Lincoln, NE.
How I Evolved on Guns During the #BostonPoliceScanner Manhunt
by Paula Bolyard
April 22, 2013 - 3:00 pm
In the wee hours of Friday morning, April 19th, I evolved on guns.
First, a confession: I’ve never owned a gun. I never wanted one in my home and, like a lot of moms, I wanted to raise non-violent children and thought keeping guns out of our home was one way to do that. When my kids were young, I didn’t want them to play with toy guns — in fact, I was rather insistent about it. Eventually, I realized that little boys will make guns out of just about anything — bananas, sticks, the dog’s paw, their fingers — nothing is safe from their imaginative minds. So I compromised and allowed squirt guns and non-gun-looking Nerf guns, but nothing that resembled a “real” gun.
My sensible (ex-military) husband indulged me in this when they were toddlers, but as they grew, he convinced me that our boys needed to learn firearms safety. He took them to firing ranges where they learned to fire weapons and even to enjoy them. Our 21 year old couldn’t wait to get his concealed-carry permit the minute he reached the legal age. I’m thankful now for my husband’s insistence that our children not be raised to fear guns.
But I never wanted a gun in my home.
[snip]
But all that changed early Friday morning. Along with 80,000 others around the world, I found myself glued to the live-action police drama being played out online. I first noticed the tweets with the hashtag #BostonPoliceScanner late Thursday evening and was soon engrossed in the manhunt, listening to the officers on the ground in Watertown and Cambridge and simultaneously following the tweets from the worldwide audience.
Throughout the night, a community of sorts formed as I began to recognize Twitter handles and together we “watched” law enforcement officers create a perimeter and lay down a grid so they could search the neighborhoods of Watertown. We listened as they responded to calls from residents who “heard something” in their sheds or thought they saw a “guy with a backpack” walking down the street. This was repeated dozens of times throughout the night. When police broadcast their location, many listeners typed the address into Google Street View and so could see the streets and even houses they were responding to.
It was both surreal and very real at the same time. It was a strange combination of social media and reality show with the knowledge that life and death were on the line. At one point, someone tweeted this: "I’m halfway across the country but if someone knocked on my door right now I’d pee my pants."
A moment of levity during a very serious, very scary night.
It was the moment I evolved on guns — the moment my support for the 2nd Amendment went from abstract to concrete.
Boston-area residents were told to “shelter-in-place.”
"We’re asking people to shelter in place. In other words, to stay indoors with their doors locked and not to open their door for anyone other than a properly identified law enforcement officer,” said Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick in a press conference in Watertown. “Please understand we have an armed and dangerous person(s) still at large and police actively pursuing every lead in this active emergency event. Please be patient and use common sense until this person(s) are apprehended."
I realized at that moment that the police cannot protect me from the Dzhokhar Tsarnaevs of the world.
The best they can do is tell me to lock myself in my home while they search for the bad guy. Though the residents of Watertown (and the surrounding greater-Boston area) were held in a state of near-martial law, the best most of them could do was huddle in their homes, hoping the police would take their 3 a.m. call and come running to rescue them before the terrorist killed them.
Chris Wallace interviewed Dianne Feinstein on Fox News Sunday about the Boston lockdown and asked her if the million people locked in their homes in Boston might have felt safer with guns.
“Some may have [wanted guns], yes,” Feinstein said. “But if where you’re going is ‘do they need an assault weapon?’ I don’t think so.”
Wallace pressed Feinstien on whether citizens should be able to decide the best way to protect themselves in their homes:
“How about a machine gun then?” Feinstein asked. “We did away with machine guns because of how they’re used. I think we should do away with assault weapons because of how they’re used…you can use a 12-gauge shotgun and have a good defensive effect and there’s the element of surprise.”
“Now you’ve got police all over the place in Watertown, so I don’t really think this is applicable. I think there are people who want to make this argument,” she added.
As I listened to the police scanner during the Boston manhunt, I wasn’t thinking about “police all over the place” in the “personal security guard” sense that Feinstein seemed to be implying.
Instead, I imagined a mother huddled in the nursery with her baby. Her husband is out of town and she is also listening to the police scanner, praying the terrorist doesn’t burst through her back door.
I imagined an 85-year-old World War II veteran living alone. He fought the Nazis on foot across Europe and his government just instructed him to “shelter-in-place.” He turns out the lights in his home and hunches over his radio waiting for updates though the long night.
I wondered if they could protect themselves if the worst happened.
In the middle of that night listening to the Boston police scanner, I evolved.
I realized right then that if I were holed up in my house while a cold-blooded terrorist roamed my neighborhood, I wouldn’t want to be a sitting duck with only a deadbolt lock between me and an armed intruder. There are not enough police and they cannot come to my rescue quickly enough. They carry guns to protect themselves, not me. I knew at that instant if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev showed up at my door while I was “sheltered-in-place” and aimed a gun at my head and only one of us would live, I could pull the trigger.
I’m shopping for guns this week. I’ve been told a 12-gauge shotgun is a good choice for home protection, but I’m open to suggestions.
[LINK] (http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/04/22/how-i-evolved-on-guns-during-the-bostonpolicescanner-manhunt/?singlepage=true)
Peregrino
04-27-2013, 19:00
How I Evolved on Guns During the #BostonPoliceScanner Manhunt
by Paula Bolyard
April 22, 2013 - 3:00 pm
In the wee hours of Friday morning, April 19th, I evolved on guns.
********************************
I’m shopping for guns this week. I’ve been told a 12-gauge shotgun is a good choice for home protection, but I’m open to suggestions.
[LINK] (http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/04/22/how-i-evolved-on-guns-during-the-bostonpolicescanner-manhunt/?singlepage=true)
Nothing like having your nose forceably rubbed in the fact that the individual really is the person ultimately responsible for their own safety. Add a bit of responsibility for children or others who cannot defend themselves effectively and suddenly its a wake-up call.
And then there's Ms. Feinstein and everyone like her who advocates citizen disarmament. Here's an interesting read sent to me by a friend: http://www.survivalblog.com/2013/04/my-five-step-plan-to-ban-guns-in-the-us-within-10-years-by-jason-h.html. Thought provoking? Makes me wonder how long it'll be before Paula Bolyard is demonized as "reactionary" by the "opinion shapers".
VFW Post sign in Lincoln, NE.
That is so rich gotta, love them Huskers!
RE: orion5 Post 428, it reminds me of the old saying "A Democrat is a Republican Who Hasn’t Been Mugged Yet." this is a great read, the light has gone on in this womans head "There are not enough police and they cannot come to my rescue quickly enough. They carry guns to protect themselves, not me." You can bet she is not the only one in the area with a shopping list. I will not live in fear in my own home.
From Guns Magazine, September 1955
Like another presentation of tinea cruris...
Senators Quietly Seeking New Path on Gun Control
By JEREMY W. PETERS
NYT
Published: April 25, 2013
WASHINGTON — Talks to revive gun control legislation are quietly under way on Capitol Hill as a bipartisan group of senators seeks a way to bridge the differences that led to last week’s collapse of the most serious effort to overhaul the country’s gun laws in 20 years.
Next week when Congress is in recess, gun control groups coordinating with the Obama committee Organizing for Action will be fanning out across the country in dozens of demonstrations at the offices of senators who voted down the background check bill.
<snip>
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/us/politics/senators-quietly-seek-a-new-path-on-gun-control.html?_r=2&
From Guns Magazine, September 1957
From Guns Magazine, September 1957
Interesting article - as was the previous one you posted above - from 1955. The advertisements appearing in the mags were also particularly interesting.
Seems in some respects, the more things change the more they remain the same - wish the same could be said of prices. ;)
Thanks for posting these old articles.
From the subject 1957 article:
"Recently proposed Treasury regulations came close to this ideal; they could have destroyed the firearms industry and the shooting sport. Under the guise of protecting the people, these makers of rules who push anti-gun bills such all these are forging weapons, not into plough shares, but into an iron collar of restraint, worthy of a fascist state.
Year by year more anti-gun laws are proposed. Meanwhile, pro-gun collectors and shooters are mollified by the excuse "these laws are thought up by well meaning, innocent do gooders."
Badger52
04-29-2013, 03:30
From Guns Magazine, September 1957Great find, thank you.
From Guns Magazine, Jun 1958
From Guns Magazine, Jun 1958
Good post! First I've heard of an "Ortgies belly gun".
What is being discussed on NPR.
Richard :munchin
When It Comes To Guns, How Young Is Too Young?
NPR, 2 May 2013
The shooting death of a 2-year-old girl in Kentucky at the hands of her 5-year-old brother has opened up yet another debate about gun control.
While no one favors the idea of 5-year-olds using weapons without supervision, there is no consensus on the appropriate age to start hands-on training with firearms.
"Many people who have firearms familiarize their kids with firearms early on, because they want them to know that this is not something to be trifled with," says Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, a gun rights advocacy group.
But while some hunters and other gun owners want to instill in their kids a sense of heritage and a healthy respect for safety, public health advocates believe there's little benefit in allowing any children to handle guns.
The American Academy of Pediatrics states bluntly in a policy statement that the best way to prevent firearm injury is to keep guns out of children's homes and communities.
"In terms of safety, why would you want these kids around incredibly dangerous products?" says David Hemenway, director of Harvard University's Injury Control Research Center. "It's hard to imagine how this increases safety at all — let's play with a dangerous product."
To keep children safe, Americans need to treat guns with the same care that they use when it comes to cars and swimming pools, says Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun control advocacy group. But that won't necessarily be the result of any new laws or regulations.
"Decisions around guns should be looked at as an issue of parental responsibility," Gross says. "We think it's up to parents to make sure they're fully educated about the risks of guns around the home."
Not Common But Dangerous
The number of children unintentionally killed by firearms is relatively small — an average of about 125 per year, according to the Brady Campaign.
Of course, the total number of shootings is much higher. More than 3,000 children are treated for accidental shootings in emergency rooms each year.
Shootings are likely to inflict greater harm than other types of injuries. Half of the youths treated for gun injuries at two Colorado trauma centers required intensive care, compared with less than a fifth of those with other types of injuries, according to a study published last week in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Thirteen percent of those gun victims died, compared with fewer than 2 percent of the children injured in other ways.
Hemenway says it's much more difficult to find reliable data on the number of children who shoot other people, as opposed to how many children are shot. But his own research has shown that when children are shot accidentally, it's usually someone around their own age holding the weapon — or, often, older brothers.
Training To Avoid Accidents
Anyone who has been around children (especially boys) knows they are likely to pretend almost any object is a gun and will pretend to shoot people with it.
Small children and real firearms, therefore, are accidents waiting to happen.
Last month, a man in the Cincinnati area was arrested after his 3-year-old son shot himself in the arm while reaching for a loaded gun that was hidden under a bed.
Next week, Democratic Rep. John Tierney of Massachusetts intends to introduce a bill that would require gun makers to "personalize" weapons so that they will fire only for their owners. Such technology exists, but as with other gun restrictions, his legislation faces an uncertain future.
In the meantime, everyone from gun manufacturers to the Boy Scouts posts information on their websites related to gun safety for kids. For the most part, the tips involve common sense.
Keep weapons locked and unloaded, and keep ammunition secured elsewhere. Never point a gun at anyone else.
"There are still far too many parents in our country who think that just hiding the gun is enough," says Gross, the Brady Campaign president. "Parents think that children don't know where guns are hidden, or that their kids know better."
Gun clubs and groups such as the Boy Scouts and 4-H routinely offer firearms safety instruction to children. "Sometimes, the younger kids seem to pay attention better than the older kids," says Robert L. Weiman, who trains about 130 kids a year as a volunteer safety instructor at the Monticello Rod & Gun Club in Minnesota.
Minnesota, like a number of other states in recent years, has lowered the minimum age at which children can receive hunting licenses to 10.
Weiman says it makes no sense to him that 10-year-olds can hunt with adult supervision but aren't allowed to take his safety course until they reach their 11th birthdays.
"I know a lot of 10-year-olds personally who could go through that course with no problem at all," he says. "Ten-year-olds are as capable of understanding what we're teaching them just as well as a 12-year-old."
Marketing To Children
If states can't quite settle on the exact age at which they believe children can responsibly handle firearms, what has disturbed a number of people about Tuesday's shooting in Kentucky is the fact that Kristian Sparks, the 5-year-old who shot his younger sister Caroline, used a rifle known as a Crickett that had been given to him as a gift.
Keystone Sporting Arms, which manufactured the weapon, markets it as "my first rifle," offered in a range of colors and held in promotional materials by a cartoon cricket. Its website features a "kids corner" filled with pictures of young children holding weapons.
Those appear to have been taken down, and the company has refused to comment to reporters.
But Keystone is not alone in marketing firearms to children. Other gun makers run advertisements designed to appeal to children as well, in publications such as Junior Shooters.
In 2011, Keystone gave away 1,000 youth .22-caliber rifles to gun dealers and ranges that hosted First Shots introductory events sponsored by the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
"Keystone Sporting Arms believes in firearms safety and getting youth started with the right equipment to ensure the best experience," Bill McNeal, who co-founded the company with his son in 1996, said at the time.
http://www.npr.org/2013/05/02/180607299/when-it-comes-to-guns-how-young-is-too-young
Barry in Mexico yesterday...no mention of F&F (this is my shocked face) a continuation of his May Day dance.
Obama vows to keep at gun control: 'This is just the first round'
By Michael O'Brien, Political Reporter, NBC News
President Barack Obama vowed Thursday during a trip to Mexico to continue pushing for new, tighter gun control rules in the United States, saying his proposals’ recent defeat in Congress was “just the first round.”
Speaking following a meeting with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, whose country has been ravaged by gang violence supported in part by gun trafficking into Mexico, Obama vowed to return to the issue of gun control in the United States.
<snip>
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/02/18024051-obama-vows-to-keep-at-gun-control-this-is-just-the-first-round?lite
One has to be especially delusional to say something like that with F&F in your resume. Seriously nutty. We have the Mad Hatter for President.
Badger52
05-03-2013, 16:45
In spite of a Dick Dastardly-style attempt by the Southern Poverty Law Center to spread the tar of hate accusations on the track before them, Oath Keepers exceeded their fundraising goal of $30,000 by over half late Wednesday, burying the needle and succeeding in sponsoring their car for a June 1 NASCAR race in Dover, Del.
“We are now not only all set for the June 1, Dover race, but are now also half way to our next goal, which will be sponsoring Jeffrey Earnhardt in a July 14, 2013 race in New Hampshire (Live Free Or Die!),” the group of current and retired military, law enforcement and firefighters announced on its website. Members pledge to put their oath to the Constitution over all else, and list orders they will not obey, including orders to disarm their fellow Americans.
LINK to rest of the story. (http://www.examiner.com/article/oath-keepers-buries-nascar-fundraising-needle-as-splc-spins-out-and-crashes?CID=examiner_alerts_article)
Here's a pic of the Fastwax/Jeff Earnhardt car.
You can't make this shit up - Obama uses Chicago violence to push for more gun control. Chicago is one of the most heavily regulated cities in America when it comes to gun ownership.
Perhaps, this sideshow should meet with the thugs doing the actual shooting to discuss their gun control.
Next stop Organizing for Action - Benghazi - to discuss Barry's theories on crowd control.
Obama Campaign Uses Chicago Violence to Push for Gun Control
Weekly Standard
2:12 PM, MAY 3, 2013 • BY DANIEL HALPER
In a petition emailed today to supporters, Organizing for Action, President Obama's former campaign group, uses violence in Chicago to push for more gun control.
<snip>
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-campaign-uses-chicago-violence-push-gun-control_720602.html#
<snip>
Organizing for Action
Statement of Purpose
Organizing for Action is a nonprofit organization established to support President Obama in achieving enactment of the national agenda Americans voted for on Election Day 2012. OFA will advocate for these policies throughout the country and will mobilize citizens of all parties and diverse points of view to speak out for speedy passage and effective implementation of this program, including gun control, sensible environmental policies to address climate change and immigration reform. In addition, OFA will encourage the formation of chapters that will be dedicated at the grassroots level to this program, but also committed to identifying and working progressive change on a range of issues at the state and local level. In carrying its work, OFA will operate as a "social welfare" organization within the meaning of section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code.
http://www.barackobama.com/about/about-ofa?source=footer-nav
Only the first round, huh Barry? Well, We the People, are in for the long fight. We have started recalling Senators, and will continue to recall, vote out of office, impeach, or whatever we have to do to fix this problem...
How pathetic a person do you have to be to try to convince people that gun control actually works at all? How pathetic do you have to be to believe that gun control actually works at all?
Answer: See Diane Feinstein.
On that whole "90% support" bit:
1) 90% of Americans may favor universal background checks, but that doesn't mean 90% support the particular bill that was shelved. A majority support lots of things, for example cutting government spending, creating a balanced budget, etc...but when it comes to the actual implementation of those things, it's a wholly different ballgame.
2) Just because 90% of Americans may support a measure does not mean that the government is supposed to enact it. Universal background checks cannot be enforced without creating a federal gun registry, and historically, gun registries have always been the precursor to gun confiscation, which happened in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina and Governor Cuomo and Senator Feinstein have talked about doing it. We are a republic, in which the system is supposed to protect the rights of the majority from the minority but also the rights of the minority from the majority as well.
3) Most people do not have the requisite knowledge required to appropriately answer questions regarding gun control issues. Many may not realize what they are saying as a result.
Good points Broadsword2004 thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Colion Noir has a video (below) on the topic of the mythical 90%.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=YuvCTZ9XtrM&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DYuvCTZ9XtrM
If universal background checks (as the legislation was actually written) truly had 90% support in the Harry Reid led Senate it would have been a slam dunk to pass that legislative body.
A google search of push/pull polling provides additional insight on many opinion polls.
There are lies, there are damn lies and then there is Obama.
Badger52
05-04-2013, 17:41
Neither knee in the CO governor's mansion could be reached for comment, since they're exhausted from jerking. Hi-Viz heads from CO to Laramie, WY.
LINK to full story here. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/3/gunmaker-hiviz-leaves-colorado-wyoming-new-laws/?page=all#pagebreak)
Badger52
05-05-2013, 12:17
A tiny snippet:
Death by a thousand cuts
Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners always talk about 90 percent of Americans supporting this gun control measure, or 65 percent supporting that one, as if a majority opinion is what truly matters in America. We don’t trust anti-gun people because you think America is a democracy, when it’s actually a constitutional federal republic. In the American system, the rights of a single individual are what matters and are what our system is designed to protect. The emotional mob does not rule in America.
Link to full story. (http://m.iowastatedaily.com/mobile/opinion/article_1c144792-b36d-11e2-8ac6-001a4bcf887a.html)
BigJimCalhoun
05-05-2013, 14:33
I was just going to post that article, but you beat me to it. It is a great one.
GratefulCitizen
05-05-2013, 17:22
Have a feeling this either won't come to fruition or the numbers will be small.
The government response will be watched carefully.
http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/radio-host-lead-armed-march-dc-july-4th-put-govt-notice-we-wont-be
Gun Homicides Down (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/07/two-new-reports-show-gun-homicides-down-since-10s/)
Interesting points from the article:
A study released Tuesday by the government's Bureau of Justice Statistics found that gun-related homicides dropped from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011. That's a 39 percent reduction.
Another report by the private Pew Research Center found a similar decline by looking at the rate of gun homicides, which compares the number of killings to the size of the country's population. It found that the number of gun homicides per 100,000 people fell from 7 in 1993 to 3.6 in 2010, a drop of 49 percent.
But the MSM's continuous glorification and politicization of each gun-related incident, coupled with their demonization and villification of law-abiding gun owners leaves us with this sobering statistic from the Pew Poll:
But perhaps because of the intense publicity generated by recent mass shootings such as the December massacre of 20 school children and six educators in Newtown, Conn., the public seems to have largely not noticed the reductions in gun violence, the Pew study shows.
The non-partisan group said a poll it conducted in March showed that 56 percent of people believe the number of gun crimes is higher than it was two decades ago. Only 12 percent said they think the number of gun crimes is lower, while the rest said they think it remained the same or didn't know.
The only way that a majority of the population can arrive at the opinion that gun crimes have risen in the last two decades is through the duplicity of the MSM, who have abdicated all vestiges of their journalistic responsibilities as members of the "4th Estate" at the altar of partisan politics...
Pew Research Article (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/)
Bureau of Justice Link (http://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4616)
Badger52
05-07-2013, 19:25
The only way that a majority of the population can arrive at the opinion that gun crimes have risen in the last two decades is through the duplicity of the MSM, who have abdicated all vestiges of their journalistic responsibilities as members of the "4th Estate" at the altar of partisan politics...Pretty fair indictment, which is what it is.
The Reaper
05-07-2013, 19:28
So, Dr. John Lott would appear to be correct.
TR
Total NICS Background Checks November 30, 1998 - April 30, 2013
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/total-nics-background-checks-1998_2013_monthly_yearly_totals-033113.pdf
Badger52
05-08-2013, 16:56
Total NICS Background Checks November 30, 1998 - April 30, 2013
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/total-nics-background-checks-1998_2013_monthly_yearly_totals-033113.pdfIn the future, the Lautenberg "permit to reload" bill here. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s792/text?utm_campaign=govtrack_email_update&utm_source=govtrack/email_update&utm_medium=email)
Read carefully, and note again the way the AG inserts itself into the permission process, and the criteria.
In the future, the Lautenberg "permit to reload" bill here. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s792/text?utm_campaign=govtrack_email_update&utm_source=govtrack/email_update&utm_medium=email)
Read carefully, and note again the way the AG inserts itself into the permission process, and the criteria.
"The Attorney General shall issue guidelines describing the circumstances under which the Attorney General will exercise the authority and make determinations..."
Chuckie Schumer is now a co-sponsor.
I feel safer already.
Stiletto11
05-08-2013, 20:06
I worry that my son might not understand what I've tried to be. And if I were to be killed, Willard, I would want someone to go to my home and tell my son everything – everything I did, everything you saw – because there's nothing that I detest more than the stench of lies. And if you understand me, Willard, you will do this for me.:lifter and they thought Kurtz was nuts, Ha.
The Reaper
05-08-2013, 20:20
I worry that my son might not understand what I've tried to be. And if I were to be killed, Willard, I would want someone to go to my home and tell my son everything – everything I did, everything you saw – because there's nothing that I detest more than the stench of lies. And if you understand me, Willard, you will do this for me.:lifter and they thought Kurtz was nuts, Ha.
Wrong thread? :D
TR
A friend forwarded this YouTube PSA to me this morning.
I think that the producer meant to say standard capacity magazines rather than high capacity magazines - at least he did not call them "clips" - if the libs own the lanaguage they often own the argument.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=7F1nPSNnaBo&feature=player_embedded&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%2 6v%3D7F1nPSNnaBo
miclo18d
05-09-2013, 09:21
A friend forwarded this YouTube PSA to me this morning.
I think that the producer meant to say standard capacity magazines rather than high capacity magazines - at least he did not call them "clips" - if the libs own the lanaguage they often own the argument.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=7F1nPSNnaBo&feature=player_embedded&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%2 6v%3D7F1nPSNnaBo
You say own the language and yet you pigeon-hole your magazine argument. Standard capacity implies a standard amount [if the libs get their way the "standard" will be low, say 7 0r 10 rounds]. who sets the "standard"?
I want HIGH capacity magazines! The higher the better! No one in combat ever says they carried too much ammo! Not only do I want high capacity magazines, I want a lot of them!
Own the language of Hi-Cap mags! Libs can try to label them "assault mags" or "death clips" for all I care but we should take back the language!
High Capacity Magazines Save Lives!!!!
Now back to your regularly scheduled argument!
You say own the language and yet you pigeon-hole your magazine argument. Standard capacity implies a standard amount [if the libs get their way the "standard" will be low, say 7 0r 10 rounds]. who sets the "standard"?
I want HIGH capacity magazines! The higher the better! No one in combat ever says they carried too much ammo! Not only do I want high capacity magazines, I want a lot of them!
Own the language of Hi-Cap mags! Libs can try to label them "assault mags" or "death clips" for all I care but we should take back the language!
High Capacity Magazines Save Lives!!!!
Now back to your regularly scheduled argument!
High capacity, standard capacity...as long as the magazines hold more than 10 rounds and free, law abiding citizens can own, use and transfer them - I'm in.
ETA: IMO, standard capacity for a Glock 19 magazine is commonly 15 rounds - high capacity is 33 rounds and restricted magazine capacity is 10 rounds.
miclo18d
05-09-2013, 14:31
High capacity, standard capacity...as long as the magazines hold more than 10 rounds and free, law abiding citizens can own, use and transfer them - I'm in.
ETA: IMO, standard capacity for a Glock 19 magazine is commonly 15 rounds - high capacity is 33 rounds and restricted magazine capacity is 10 rounds.
I think you're onto something! The current administration is trying to make us use a RESTRICTED MAGAZINE! Make them look like the Nazis they are by restricting our rights!
Badger52
05-09-2013, 17:41
- high capacity is 33 rounds - Don't EVEN be thinkin' about reachin' for my standard-size G18 Pez dispensers. :D
Don't EVEN be thinkin' about reachin' for my standard-size G18 Pez dispensers. :D
Lol..."hurricane sticks" - they do provide a nice - easy to carry - ready to go package of 9mm goodness. ;)
TO THOSE WHO THINK GUN CONTROL STOPS CRIME:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/10/pit-bull-terriers-kill-jogger?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20main-3%20Main%20trailblock:Network%20front%20-%20main%20trailblock:Position14
A pack of up to four pit bull terriers has been blamed for the death of a jogger in rural Los Angeles, with officials warning on Thursday that the dogs remained on the loose.
Sheriff's Lieutenant John Corina said a woman in a car saw the dogs attacking the female jogger, 63, on Thursday morning. The witness called police and blew her car horn to try to get the dogs to stop.
"When the first deputy on scene saw one dog still attacking the woman, he tried to chase the dog away," Corina said. "The dog ran off into the desert, then turned around and attacked the deputy, the deputy fired a round at the dog and tried to kill the dog, and the dog took off into the desert."
The woman died while she was in an ambulance on the way to a hospital, said Evelina Villa, county animal control spokeswoman.
The coroner's office was investigating to determine the cause of death.
Sheriff's officials were alerting people in the area to watch for four tan-coloured dogs and were were using a helicopter to search for them. It was unclear whether the dogs had collars or owners.
"In these areas you might have a situation where people dump animals out in rural areas," said John Mlynar, a spokesman for the nearby city of Palmdale. He haad never heard of an attack like Thursday's, Mlynar said.
Residents near the site of the attack said stray dogs were constantly roaming the area and had attacked people before.
"It's really scary," Diane Huffman, of Littlerock, told KABC-TV. "I don't know what to think. I really think I'm going to be getting a gun to protect myself."
Snip
ddoering
05-10-2013, 07:31
Sorry but she can only have one if she joins a state recognized militia.
Was there really any doubt as to their intent?
Open mike reveals N.J. senators’ contempt for gun owners, confiscation goal
GUN RIGHTS
MAY 10, 2013
BY: DAVID CODREA
Examiner.com
<snip>
A microphone left on after the gavel fell at a New Jersey Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee hearing Thursday shows the “true view” of some of the senators toward gun owners, and provides proof that gun confiscation is a goal on which they agree, the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs revealed in an email to members and supporters today.
Among the lines heard in the recording:
"We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”
"They don’t care about the bad guys. All they want to do is have their little guns and do whatever they want with them.”
ETA link to audio below:
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jMptQ_YfvzE&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DjMptQ_YfvzE%26feature%3 Dplayer_embedded
<snip>
http://www.examiner.com/article/open-mike-reveals-n-j-senators-contempt-for-gun-owners-confiscation-goal?CID=examiner_alerts_article
These "anointed ones" hold the rest of us in contempt. They only hide it when trying to get elected but the mask slips when the cameras aren't around (or they think they aren't). The storm is coming.
These "anointed ones" hold the rest of us in contempt. They only hide it when trying to get elected but the mask slips when the cameras aren't around (or they think they aren't). The storm is coming.
Yes. Yes it is.
Badger52
05-26-2013, 18:39
Sounds like Mr. Nagel (and some some supportive parents of students) are OK with a page from reality - except for that darn law.
(And he gets paid a hellluva lot less than Lois Lerner.)
Complete story here (2 pgs, read it all) (http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/05/17814-teacher-faces-1-year-in-prison-job-loss-for-protecting-children-with-concealed-carry/[/url)
Includes a pretty damning assessment of a w i d e -open school from a security standpoint. Ok, you hand-wringing, ostrich-headed politicos, you want to dance on the blood of children; how many does it take until you understand that you can't wish away the monsters in the world?
swatsurgeon
05-29-2013, 07:55
that video is spot on....handguns are not great 'stoppers' and as we all know until the shot person bleeds enough to stop being a threat, multiple holes make them bleeed faster unless you get a great head shot.....unlikely under stress for the average armed civilian.
Team Sergeant
05-29-2013, 09:16
that video is spot on....handguns are not great 'stoppers' and as we all know until the shot person bleeds enough to stop being a threat, multiple holes make them bleeed faster unless you get a great head shot.....unlikely under stress for the average armed civilian.
He needs to do another video for the "non-believers". I'd recommend he do a video of average police shootings from around the country where average "Joe/Josephine Cop" empties their high capacity magazine in almost "every" gunfight.:munchin
He needs to do another video for the "non-believers". I'd recommend he do a video of average police shootings from around the country where average "Joe/Josephine Cop" empties their high capacity magazine in almost "every" gunfight.:munchin
Excellent point - you can contact him here: Link (http://mbstudioproductions.tv/html/contact.html)
Give him some background, mention The Letter, make your suggestion. Maybe offer to help with a video showing liberal fantasy (you shooting) and reality (cops shooting).
Excellent point - you can contact him here: Link (http://mbstudioproductions.tv/html/contact.html)
Give him some background, mention The Letter, make your suggestion. Maybe offer to help with a video showing liberal fantasy (you shooting) and reality (cops shooting).
Exactly! Of all the misunderstandings I have heard from non-military sources, this is probably the most frequently expressed. Non gun owners cannot fathom that every shot does not land where intended. I just ask them to spend a day at a range and observe. I have them watch these people who practice and are not under threat. That usually opens their eyes to a small dose of reality. I do not usually hear anything more about magazine size. Also, they encounter well mannered, polite people at the range - again, not what they are expecting.
These "anointed ones" hold the rest of us in contempt. They only hide it when trying to get elected but the mask slips when the cameras aren't around (or they think they aren't). The storm is coming.
Agreed. Here is Maryland now you wait up to 90+ days after the purchase of
a pistol to get a "not denied" stamp. What last year was 7 days, as by Md law.
Gun owners mad as hell.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/03/daniel-zimmerman/maryland-wait-times-for-handguns-rifles-running-40-days/
The Reaper
05-30-2013, 17:10
Agreed. Here is Maryland now you wait up to 90+ days after the purchase of
a pistol to get a "not denied" stamp. What last year was 7 days, as by Md law.
Gun owners mad as hell.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/03/daniel-zimmerman/maryland-wait-times-for-handguns-rifles-running-40-days/
Not here.
Show photo ID, your concealed weapons permit, fill out the 4473, and cash & carry anything you want out the door, except for Class III.
That is a Federal process and takes a month to six months, depending.
TR
Agreed. Here is Maryland now you wait up to 90+ days after the purchase of
a pistol to get a "not denied" stamp. What last year was 7 days, as by Md law.
Gun owners mad as hell.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/03/daniel-zimmerman/maryland-wait-times-for-handguns-rifles-running-40-days/
Sounds like a wonderful place to live - Plus a Rain Tax...Spectacular!
Sounds like a wonderful place to live - Plus a Rain Tax...Spectacular!
"keep your friends close and your enemies closer"
""keep your friends close and your enemies closer"Well put - you're definitely in the middle of it. Will give you this; it's a pretty place...couple of months ago was offered a very good position there and actually considered it.
Badger52
05-31-2013, 16:02
Sadly believable; source link (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/30/police-confiscate-gun-homeowner-firing-shot-burgla/)
Police confiscate gun from homeowner for firing shot at burglar
By Cheryl K. Chumley
The Washington Times
Thursday, May 30, 2013
A military veteran in Oregon had his rifle confiscated after police decided he had no good reason to fire a warning shot at a burglar who was breaking into his home.
The burglar turned out to be 40-year-old wanted felon Jonathon Kinsella, The Blaze reported. Police caught him fleeing the scene of a home he was trying to burglarize — after the homeowner gave a verbal warning and fired a single gun shot to scare him away.
SEE RELATED: Joe Biden’s shotgun advice would land his wife in jail, police sergeant said
Nobody was injured or killed. But police responding to the burglary call said Corey Thompson, 36, should not have fired to scare off the felon, who was breaking into his home through the back door, The Blaze said.
Mr. Thompson, who’s a military veteran, said he warned the intruder: “This is the end result. You break into someone’s house, there’s consequences,” The Blaze reported. He then fired a shot from his AR-15, which did not hit anybody.
But police took his weapon, anyway. They charged Mr. Thompson with unlawful use of a weapon, and menacing and reckless endangering, and seized the weapon on the basis that it was used in the commission of a crime, The Blaze said.
“There was nothing that the suspect was doing that was aggressive enough to justify the shooting,” Medford Police Lt. Mike Budreau said, in The Blaze report.
Mr. Kinsella’s outstanding warrants were for burglary and assault, The Blaze said.I'll bet Lt. Budreau will look "totally fabulous" for his interview with the his next big metro assignment.
miclo18d
05-31-2013, 16:22
Sadly believable; source link (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/30/police-confiscate-gun-homeowner-firing-shot-burgla/)
I'll bet Lt. Budreau will look "totally fabulous" for his interview with the his next big metro assignment.
I don't know Oregon law but he should have saved himself the hassle and just shot the felon that "was charging into the guys house to kill him". It works in FL :D
Who's sig line says something like: "In Texas, 'he jus needed shootin' is justifiable." (paraphrasing)
I don't know Oregon law but he should have saved himself the hassle and just shot the felon that "was charging into the guys house to kill him". It works in FL :D
Who's sig line says something like: "In Texas, 'he jus needed shootin' is justifiable." (paraphrasing)
Warning shots are a bad idea Mr. Vice President...
Maybe he can get a Vice Presidential pardon...
Maybe he can get a Vice Presidential pardon...
This poor guy is screwed, now if he had used a shotgun instead of an
"Assault Weapon," Joe might have reason intercede.
miclo18d
06-01-2013, 05:26
Christopher Swindell: Gun safety debate is B.S.
Watching the celebration at the NRA convention over the defeat of background checks was the most nauseating experience of the day.
I am not a New York gun control liberal, either. I support a shotgun for home defense, a handgun for limited conceal/carry, and an assortment of hunting rifles to balance West Virginia's exploding deer population (as evidenced by hourly collisions with cars). So, I am hardly out of the mainstream.
But, the gun safety debate is B.S. This foaming at the mouth, Obamar is coming for the guns, Nanny Bloomberg is a bad billionaire, and most despicable of all, those survivors and victims are pawns in the liberal agenda is knuckle-dragging Cretan talk.
And no matter how many times Sen. Joe Manchin tries to explain his compromise (a decent attempt thwarted by extremists), the hard right lies and foams. The repeated lies now seem like the truth, what with the likes of Sen. Kelly Ayotte telling them.
Probably the most serious miscalculation opponents make is the guest list for the NRA speaker's podium. To let the half-wit half-term quitter Sarah Palin have a microphone is to alienate the very people Republicans need to work with on future legislation. To say nothing of the other speakers.
And how does choosing a white, rich old man with an offensive degrading speech about the war of "Northern Aggression" as NRA president forward a sense of reasonableness? History lesson: It was an awful Civil War won decisively some 150 years ago. Over slavery. The Confederacy wanted to keep African-Americans in chains and President Lincoln didn't.
Sure, there were states' rights issues, but nullification, secession, and treason were settled at Appomattox Courthouse. Sure, Reconstruction left a bad taste. But, resurrecting these same things, the way South Carolina is as we speak, is to invite a return to the whole concept of a Union.
Here it is. The NRA advocates armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States of America. That's treason, and it's worthy of the firing squad. The B.S. needs a serious gut check. We are not a tin pot banana republic where machine gun toting rebel groups storm the palace and depose the dictator.
We put the president in the White House. To support the new NRA president's agenda of arming the populace for confrontation with the government is bloody treason. And many invite it gladly as if the African-American president we voted for is somehow infringing on their Constitutional rights.
Normally, I am a peaceable man, but in this case, I am willing to answer the call to defend the country. From them.
To turn the song lyric they so love to quote back on them, "We'll put a boot in your ---, it's the American way."
Except it won't be a boot. It'll be an M1A Abrams tank, supported by an F22 Raptor squadron with Hellfire missiles. Try treason on for size. See how that suits. And their assault arsenal and RPGs won't do them any good.
So, to return to reality, all of us. Let's make common sense gun safety a deciding issue for 2014 and beyond. The NRA certainly has. Let's push back. We the People. The 85 percent who support more robust background checks. And when the next domestic terrorist with an assault rifle comes along, we can blame the leaders and fringe of the NRA for arming them.
Swindell is a professor of journalism.
Blow up the NRA (http://www.wvgazette.com/Opinion/OpEdCommentaries/201305300071)
Yeah, I know just another liberal having diarrhea of the mouth, but the interesting part is not the article but that he responded to several posts to the article and gets owned by almost every single one! For someone with a Phd, he doesn't do much thinking!
Team Sergeant
06-01-2013, 07:43
"Except it won't be a boot. It'll be an M1A Abrams tank, supported by an F22 Raptor squadron with Hellfire missiles. Try treason on for size. See how that suits. And their assault arsenal and RPGs won't do them any good."
Good thing Christopher Swindell is a professor of journalism, he doesn't shite about the US military and our oath to defend the Constitution. He'd have a left-wing liberal white knuckle bedwetting seizure if he read our letter.....;)
Yeah, I know just another liberal having diarrhea of the mouth, but the interesting part is not the article but that he responded to several posts to the article and gets owned by almost every single one! For someone with a Phd, he doesn't do much thinking!
That an look at all the "likes" on everyone else's comments and how he has one or zero likes on his. What a tool.
The Reaper
06-01-2013, 10:02
Hmm.
I think we are using those very weapons, and more right now, to try and defeat the second insurgency in the past 12 years, with mixed results.
I wouldn't be so sure that the outcome is beyond question.
Particularly since the F22s and M1 Abrams are probably not training now due to lack of funds, and I would not assume that the operators are all willing to fire on American citizens at the behest of our "leadership."
TR
ddoering
06-01-2013, 16:48
I guess he doesn't understand that the military is populated by we, the people.
I'd bet very few units would fire on their fellow citizens but I would wager more than one would help remove a dictator from power.
Today, A Gun Could Save Your Life
miclo18d
06-03-2013, 09:58
Consider the Sourse (WND) but an interesting article.
Sheriffs take bold stand to protect citizens from federal overreach (www.wnd.com/2013/06/backlash-gun-control-laws-nullified/print/)
ST. CHARLES, Mo. – Efforts at the national and state level to pass new gun-control laws have stirred up an unintended backlash – local officials who are not only rejecting the new legislation, but actively “nullifying” gun-control laws already in place.
Police Chief Mark Kessler of Gilberton Burough, Pa., is among more than 200 law enforcement officers, state lawmakers, county officials and concerned citizens who gathered Friday at the annual convention of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, or CSPOA, in St. Charles, Mo.
Among the hot topics at the conference: examples of local and county officials who have declared gun-control laws already on the books null and void in their communities.
On Jan. 3 of this year, Kessler drafted a “Second Amendment Protection Resolution” for his little town of roughly 800 residents, which, when passed by city officials a few weeks later, Kessler told the conference, “nullified every single gun-control law in the nation.”
“I have a very unique view,” Kessler said. “If you want to own a firearm, carry a gun under your jacket or over your jacket, the Second Amendment is your concealed carry permit, period. … It has nothing to do with self-defense; it has to do with [freedom from] tyranny.”
Kessler told the conference, “Nullification is the key. We just have to tell them, ‘That’s it.’ I drew my line in the sand back on Jan. 3. … One person can make a difference; you just need to do something about it.”
But apparently, Kessler is not alone.
Michael Peroutka of the Institute for the Constitution, an attorney and former Constitution Party candidate for president, also told the conference about Carroll County, Md., which on May 22 adopted a resolution declaring it a “Second Amendment sanctuary county.”
The resolution declares the Maryland Firearms Safety Act of 2013, or MFSA – which reportedly bans the sale of 45 types of rifles and magazines and requires law-abiding citizens to submit to licensing fees, background checks, fingerprinting and renewal fees – clearly violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution along with Article 2 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
The resolution further declares that the unconstitutional provisions of the act will not be enforced in Carroll County.
The resolution quotes Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 78: “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
The Board of County Commissioners then resolved, “Carroll County Government will not authorize or appropriate government funds, resources, employees, agencies, contractors, buildings, detention centers or offices for the purpose of enforcing any element of the MFSA that infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
After making a few exceptions for provisions affecting felons, the mentally ill and so forth, the resolution also states, “The Board herein declares null and void within Carroll County, elements of any and all international treaties, including the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (UNATT) that infringe on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.”
Peroutka argued that far from undermining the rule of law, the local police and county officials taking these stands are actually supporting constitutional law and fulfilling their oaths to defend the founding document.
“When a peace officer refuses to enforce an unconstitutional act,” Peroutka said, “the peace officer is not breaking the law, but upholding the law.”
Peroutka quoted the 1886 Supreme Court decision Norton v. Shelby County: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties, affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
He further quoted the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison: “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”
“These [gun-control measures] are not laws,” Peroutka concluded. “They are unconstitutional acts. You have the authority and duty to nullify this.”
“It’s a start. They’re to be saluted,” Larry Pratt, president of Gun Owners of America, told the CSPOA conference. “The county of Carroll – among many others in the nation now, happily – is pointing out you have very limited authority, federales, and if you’re going to do a bust here, you’re going to need local authorities, and it isn’t going to be available in Carroll County, Md., and I’ll bet from what I hear here today, its not going to be available in a lot of other counties either.”
Attendees of CSPOA annual conference
As WND reported, the purpose of the conference is to equip sheriffs, peace officers and public officials with information and public support to carry out their oaths of office – specifically, to uphold the U.S. Constitution – recognizing that in the case of federal overreach, the county sheriff may be the last line of defense in protecting Americans’ constitutional rights.
“We are going to train and vet them all, state by state, to understand and enforce the constitutionally protected rights of the people they serve, with an emphasis on state sovereignty and local autonomy,” explained CSPOA Founder and Executive Director Sheriff Richard Mack. “Then these local governments will issue our new Declaration to the Federal Government regarding the abuses that we will no longer tolerate or accept. Said declaration will be enforced by our Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers.
“In short,” Mack said, “the CSPOA will be the army to set our nation free.”
Mack is more than familiar with fighting federal overreach. The former sheriff of Graham County, Ariz., in 1994 Mack joined six other sheriffs in challenging a provision of the federal Brady Bill placing the burden of its background checks on local sheriffs. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to strike down the provision.
Police Chief Larry Kirk of Old Monroe, Mo., told WND, “In the past few years we have seen many of the citizens of this country become concerned over the direction it has taken. We have watched personal rights being eroded and a disconnect developing between citizens and officers working in law enforcement.
“I wanted to find other officers that shared my concerns,” he continued. “I wanted to be able to work with our sheriffs and other peace officers in educating the citizens and others in our career field on the powers of the sheriff’s office and what is needed for us to stand on guard to protect our rights and those of our fellow citizens. The CSPOA is the organization at the front of this movement.
“The people of my state are seeing the overreach of government at the federal level and want to know where their sheriffs will stand,” he concluded. “The people of this state need to hear this message, and the sheriffs of this state need to hear it. Sheriffs and officers need the support of their communities, and we need to support them. This is the organization that can help educate us all on the proper roles that we should play and what we can do to stop the encroachment on our liberties and unalienable rights.”
“We already have hundreds of police, sheriffs and other officials who have expressed a desire to be a part of this holy cause of liberty,” Mack explained.
In fact, CSPOA maintains a growing list of – at last count – 18 state sheriffs associations and more than 450 sheriffs across the country already taking a stand against what they perceive as attempts by the Obama administration to enact unconstitutional gun-control measures.
As WND reported, Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio is among those after telling a local radio host the federal government is “going to have a problem” if they expect him to confiscate guns from private citizens.
“I took [multiple] oaths of office, and they all say I will defend the Constitution of the United States,” Arpaio told Mike Broomhead of KFYI Radio in Phoenix, Ariz. “Now if they’re going to tell the sheriff that he’s going to go around picking up guns from everybody, they’re going to have a problem. I may not enforce that federal law.”
Broomhead pushed the man sometimes called “America’s toughest sheriff” even further, asking Arpaio if the feds passed a law banning ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, would his deputies confiscate such magazines?
“No,” Arpaio said. “My deputies, I said before, I’m going to arm all my deputies – a month ago I said before this – with automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons. We’re going to be able to fight back. … I don’t care what they say from Washington.”
Larry Pratt told WND he supports sheriffs taking a tough stand.
“The county sheriffs need to act and make new deputies to stop federal authority in the counties,” Pratt said. “There is a misconception in our time that the court somehow is the arbiter of what is constitutional; that’s not true! Every official that raises their right hand and says they’re going to adhere to the constitution, seek to protect it to the best of their ability, ‘so help me God’ – that’s something that they’re all obligated to do.”
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 78: “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
Nice to see some Leo's east of the Mississippi understand the purpose and meaning of the Second Amendment...
Now all we have to do is send most of the Politicians back to History 101 for a refresher course...
Badger52
06-03-2013, 10:21
Those damn numbers... again. What's an agenda to do?
:rolleyes:
LINK (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/preliminary-annual-uniform-crime-report-january-december-2012)
Table 4, selectable on the right, is kinda illuminating.
Also, maybe they're going to go back & finish up later as it seems they may consider Wyoming part of that other group of states the POTUS talked about.
:rolleyes:
ddoering
06-03-2013, 14:27
Chicago, 500 murders last year and not one forcible rape?
miclo18d
06-03-2013, 15:55
Chicago, 500 murders last year and not one forcible rape?
Too busy investigating murders to investigate rapes! :D
Too busy investigating murders to investigate rapes! :D
Or they are included in the murder stats. Why leave witnesses?
Pat
I would disagree with that sheriff that the Second Amendment isn't about self-defense. It is about self-defense, which includes tyranny.
Concur. There's not a damn thing in there about "sporting" or "hunting".
We cannot but pity the boy who has never fired a gun; he is no more humane, while his education has been sadly neglected. —Henry David Thoreau, “Higher Laws,” Walden
Our growing boys may never get the chance. One more baby step in citizen disarmament:
'Children at a California elementary school were able to turn in their toy guns for books and raffle tickets on Saturday.
School Principal Charles Hill, who came up with “Strobridge Elementary Safety Day,” said toy guns teach kids to not take real guns seriously, San Jose Mercury News reported.
“Playing with toys guns, saying ‘I’m going to shoot you,’ desensitizes them, so as they get older, it’s easier for them to use a real gun,” Mr. Hill said.'
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/10/calif-elementary-school-offers-toy-gun-buyback/
:mad::confused:
Will they be having a turn in your violent video game day also or do they just single out firearms?
The Reaper
06-10-2013, 20:59
Will they be having a turn in your violent video game day also or do they just single out firearms?
Naaah.
You can keep your dope, knives, baseball bats, your gang colors, your crack pipe, your rubbers, your grilles, your stolen cars, your pre-teen baby mama, and your copy of GTA.
TR