Gun Control Proposed in US House

[billvon 3,076]

Nice in theory. Unworkable in reality.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I don't see us ever returning to the old west...but it was a pretty polite place. Men tipped their hats to ladies and made way for them on the sidewalk. You left your gun in the holster and acted like a polite person unless you wanted twenty other guns pointed at you.

Bill the Kid is still notorious because he killed 21 men. Today's serial killers get into triple digits before we can track them down. And they don't necessarily even use firearms.

I'm not advocating. Just pointing out facts. If more people in the crowd were armed, the shooter might not have gotten many rounds off...or random fire might have hurt even more. Hard to say in this situation. But we can cite quite a few situations where an armed public could have made a disaster into a much smaller tragedy. Check the front of American Rifleman to verify.

Trust me... I know the myth of the old west and that is all it is. Hopefully we as a nation should not wish to return to an era that has been " romanticized" so completely.

I am pretty sure Ole John would love to play the role of the "sheriff"

I also agree that had there been a few more of the sane normal citizens there that are allowed to legally carry concealed that there might have been a lower death toll and fewer wounded. As you said.. there are PLENTY of situations where someone who is lisenced has intervened.

If the "system" is incapable of identifying those like Jared and prevent him from legally obtaining all the firepower he wants then we have a huge problem.
In 1968 after incidents like Whitman in Texas ( gee go figure) we were subjected to a set of rules that is supposed to prevent someone like him from aquiring firearms. But it seems that even though there is a law.. that some people are unwilling to see there is a problem if you dont actually put the people onto the NICS. Certain posters here appear to be good with that in the FEAR of a slippery slope. Jared and Cho and THOUSANDS Of others that have yet to act out their violent desires ARE letting people know that they are on the road to doing something similar.

I am NOT good with that. Get the people who belong on the list onto it. Let the professionals, deal with them.

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

A better idea.. is to make sure a guy like Jared never had a chance to walk into the store and legally buy the Glock. If we are going to have a NICS... for heavens sake lets get people like him and Cho on the damn thing in the first place.

Uh-huh, and if we start putting people on a no-guns list just because they act a little crazy now and then, where is that going to lead? I can imagine that the many hate-filled rants you have spewed in this forum, might constitute a case that YOU should be on that list too.

Best post I have read in weeks!

How many people have you "cut" again???
In all my travels around the world.. I have never felt the need to "cut" nor to shoot anyone.

I have never kept count, should I have? I protected myself!, so even though you served during peace time, if called on , you would not have killed?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

A better idea.. is to make sure a guy like Jared never had a chance to walk into the store and legally buy the Glock. If we are going to have a NICS... for heavens sake lets get people like him and Cho on the damn thing in the first place.

Uh-huh, and if we start putting people on a no-guns list just because they act a little crazy now and then, where is that going to lead? I can imagine that the many hate-filled rants you have spewed in this forum, might constitute a case that YOU should be on that list too.

You just cant help yourself can you John.

GUNS FOR EVERYONE

Thats the ticket

so are you going to join Kallend in again ignoring the obvious problems with your solution? The loss of privacy, loss of rights, and the consequences (increased violence) that will come from discouraging people from going to see a shrink?

Its not a matter of GETTING them to go see a shrink... most of the people that have done this have people in their lives that have seen disturbing glimses of things to come. You do not need a "future scope" as some who wish to deride Kallend about that. But when you have someone like the aformentioned offenders that had youtube channels and have teachers that fear them because of recurring incidents, they need to be referred for some help.. BEFORE they go off the deep end.


What would you do with someone who exibits real honest to god violence to those around them??? Give them a gift certificate to East Side Gun Emporium???

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

A better idea.. is to make sure a guy like Jared never had a chance to walk into the store and legally buy the Glock. If we are going to have a NICS... for heavens sake lets get people like him and Cho on the damn thing in the first place.

Uh-huh, and if we start putting people on a no-guns list just because they act a little crazy now and then, where is that going to lead? I can imagine that the many hate-filled rants you have spewed in this forum, might constitute a case that YOU should be on that list too.

Best post I have read in weeks!

How many people have you "cut" again???
In all my travels around the world.. I have never felt the need to "cut" nor to shoot anyone.

I have never kept count, should I have? I protected myself!, so even though you served during peace time, if called on , you would not have killed?

I guess a lot has to do with the company you keep now doesnt it. If you place yourself into drug infested areas where criminals abound, or hang out at the places you tell us you worked... then you must have just HAD to right? We were at Peace from 1971 to 1979? I guess the friends I lost during that time were just a figment of our countries imagination

I guess the addage if you remember the 70's you were not stoned enough is in action..
I remember them really well, I liked to keep my wits about me so I did not make REALLLLY bad decisions.

So as someone who has a proven track record of violence on other human beings.. you are allowed to own guns???

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Its not a matter of GETTING them to go see a shrink... most of the people that have done this have people in their lives that have seen disturbing glimses of things to come. You do not need a "future scope" as some who wish to deride Kallend about that. But when you have someone like the aformentioned offenders that had youtube channels and have teachers that fear them because of recurring incidents, they need to be referred for some help.. BEFORE they go off the deep end.

What a load of crap - we asked him hundreds of times what criteria could be used to filter out the obvious threats to society without impinging on the rights of millions. Never an answer. Same with you here. And the same non answer to what the second order consequences would be. People are already predisposed against seeking mental health care. When they know their guns, and just as likely their jobs are on the line, they're certainly going to err against going.

Quote

What would you do with someone who exibits real honest to god violence to those around them??? Give them a gift certificate to East Side Gun Emporium???

uh, charge and convict them? We have laws that cover honest to god violence.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Its not a matter of GETTING them to go see a shrink... most of the people that have done this have people in their lives that have seen disturbing glimses of things to come. You do not need a "future scope" as some who wish to deride Kallend about that. But when you have someone like the aformentioned offenders that had youtube channels and have teachers that fear them because of recurring incidents, they need to be referred for some help.. BEFORE they go off the deep end.

What a load of crap - we asked him hundreds of times what criteria could be used to filter out the obvious threats to society without impinging on the rights of millions. Never an answer. Same with you here. And the same non answer to what the second order consequences would be. People are already predisposed against seeking mental health care. When they know their guns, and just as likely their jobs are on the line, they're certainly going to err against going.

Quote

What would you do with someone who exibits real honest to god violence to those around them??? Give them a gift certificate to East Side Gun Emporium???

uh, charge and convict them? We have laws that cover honest to god violence.

Actually he did answer it... in his Point #2

But there in lies the problem, Those of you who deride him... incessantly seem to not actually read what the man writes because he is not telling you what you want to hear ... which seems to be an affliction of some people here, of not listening to anything other than your buddies, who are preaching to your off key cuir.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Actually he did answer it... in his Point #2

What exactly are you referring to? He hasn't posted in this thread. And this is his most common answer - "I already answered the question...somewhere.....so I won't answer it here." Basically, a non answer, just like you've done (again).

Quote

But there in lies the problem, Those of you who deride him... incessantly seem to not actually read what the man writes because he is not telling you what you want to hear ... which seems to be an affliction of some people here, of not listening to anything other than your buddies, who are preaching to your off key cuir.

No, we're asking him to explain how you balance privacy rights with society's wish to be safe. Pretty much the same question both of you would ask about the Patriot Act.

Merely shaking your head and saying we can't let crazy people buy guns isn't really a solution. Details do matter. But the reality is that there's no free lunch here. Rights aren't free. And you won't prevent mentally suspect people from getting guns and killing people without trampling on rights. If you narrow the criteria to a justifiable level, then you barely filter out anyone, and the shootings still take place.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

A better idea.. is to make sure a guy like Jared never had a chance to walk into the store and legally buy the Glock. If we are going to have a NICS... for heavens sake lets get people like him and Cho on the damn thing in the first place.

Uh-huh, and if we start putting people on a no-guns list just because they act a little crazy now and then, where is that going to lead? I can imagine that the many hate-filled rants you have spewed in this forum, might constitute a case that YOU should be on that list too.

You just cant help yourself can you John.
GUNS FOR EVERYONE
Thats the ticket

I'm just looking out for your best interests. I wouldn't want the police to show up on your doorstep some day looking to confiscate your commie AK rifle, just because someone accused you of being full of political hatred just like the Tuscon shooter, and was worried about you going violent likewise.

Would you be willing to forfeit your gun rights in order to make everyone else feel more safe?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So as someone who has a proven track record of violence on other human beings.. you are allowed to own guns???

Incorrect. If someone has a history of violence, they should also have a criminal history, which prohibits them from owning guns. Ever.

The shooters that you mention; Jared and Cho, had no history of violence - just a history of acting weird. And I'm not sure we want to start putting "weird" people on lists to be denied constitutional rights.

[davjohns 1]

For the sake of discussion, is the old method ever going to be viable again? Once upon a time, the community and family would take weapons from people who might be dangerous. Now, we seem to look to the government for these things.

I maintain that an involved family and neighbors could do many things better than the government that intervenes today. I don't know if we can get back to that state without some apocalyptic event.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

A better idea.. is to make sure a guy like Jared never had a chance to walk into the store and legally buy the Glock. If we are going to have a NICS... for heavens sake lets get people like him and Cho on the damn thing in the first place.

Uh-huh, and if we start putting people on a no-guns list just because they act a little crazy now and then, where is that going to lead? I can imagine that the many hate-filled rants you have spewed in this forum, might constitute a case that YOU should be on that list too.

You just cant help yourself can you John.
GUNS FOR EVERYONE
Thats the ticket

I'm just looking out for your best interests. I wouldn't want the police to show up on your doorstep some day looking to confiscate your commie AK rifle, just because someone accused you of being full of partisan hatred, and was worried about you going violent.

Par for the course John

I own NOTHING that chambers 7.62 x 39

But thanks for trying to infer that I would be willing to own a "commie" weapon, I guess in your mind anyone who owns a "commie" gun is a commie huh. see what ASSume gets ya... I bet a whole bunch of your fellow travellers actually own "commie" guns

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I don't know if we can get back to that state without some apocalyptic event.

see? there we go again, inciting apocalypse. Now if someone goes off and apocalypse's'es someone else - you'll be to blame

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

I don't know if we can get back to that state without some apocalyptic event.

see? there we go again, inciting apocalypse. Now if someone goes off and apocalypse's'es someone else - you'll be to blame

Thanks for the laugh.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

So as someone who has a proven track record of violence on other human beings.. you are allowed to own guns???

Incorrect. If someone has a history of violence, they should also have a criminal history, which prohibits them from owning guns. Ever.

The shooters that you mention; Jared and Cho, had no history of violence - just a history of acting weird. And I'm not sure we want to start putting "weird" people on lists to be denied constitutional rights.

Funny but the SCOTUS seems to think that those with issues like Cho.. should be denied

Or did I miss something there

Personally I want people like him that are "acting wierd" and have been to the shrinks to be put on a wait and see list, rahter than letting them run amuck after a shopping spree at Houston Gun Emporium.

But you and the absolutists see ANYTHING approaching a SANE attempt to keep people like Cho from getting weapons as the ULTIMATE slippery slope to be feared.

I am of the opinion that not EVERYONE and people like Cho in particular should not have unfettered access to weapons.
Last I checked... I was agreeing with the SCOTUS

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

A better idea.. is to make sure a guy like Jared never had a chance to walk into the store and legally buy the Glock. If we are going to have a NICS... for heavens sake lets get people like him and Cho on the damn thing in the first place.

Uh-huh, and if we start putting people on a no-guns list just because they act a little crazy now and then, where is that going to lead? I can imagine that the many hate-filled rants you have spewed in this forum, might constitute a case that YOU should be on that list too.

Best post I have read in weeks!

How many people have you "cut" again???
In all my travels around the world.. I have never felt the need to "cut" nor to shoot anyone.

I have never kept count, should I have? I protected myself!, so even though you served during peace time, if called on , you would not have killed?

I guess a lot has to do with the company you keep now doesnt it. If you place yourself into drug infested areas where criminals abound, or hang out at the places you tell us you worked... then you must have just HAD to right? We were at Peace from 1971 to 1979? I guess the friends I lost during that time were just a figment of our countries imagination

I guess the addage if you remember the 70's you were not stoned enough is in action..
I remember them really well, I liked to keep my wits about me so I did not make REALLLLY bad decisions.

So as someone who has a proven track record of violence on other human beings.. you are allowed to own guns???

Yes I am, Why I shouldn't I be? Back to PA's I see ! Feel free, is has been pointed out to me, I am free game in these forums, so please, keep it up, I am enjoying it!

So, the fact I grew up on the streets, and made my life on the carnival is supposed to make me unworthy of owning a gun? Please expalin how! I'm curious!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I own NOTHING that chambers 7.62 x 39

But thanks for trying to infer that I would be willing to own a "commie" weapon, I guess in your mind anyone who owns a "commie" gun is a commie huh. see what ASSume gets ya...

You claim to have fired a number of SKS rifles (almost identical to AK's):
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3065352;#3065352

And you apparently DID own some 7.62 x 39 rifles at one time:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3390561;#3390283

So what does that say about your willingness to own a commie weapon? Well, it seems to indicate that you were certainly willing at one time in the past, and now for some reason you want to portray yourself as too good to do that.

And finally, it's funny the way you try and criticize me for assumptions, and then turn right around and make one yourself about what must be in my own mind in relation to commie guns and commies. That's one of those "Pot, meet Kettle" things.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Funny but the SCOTUS seems to think that those with issues like Cho.. should be denied

Or did I miss something there

Got a cite for that, where the SC says that someone who only WENT to a psychiatrist should be banned?

Quote

Personally I want people like him that are "acting wierd" and have been to the shrinks to be put on a wait and see list, rahter than letting them run amuck after a shopping spree at Houston Gun Emporium.

So, you want anyone who has seen a psychiatrist to be summarily banned, even though they were determined to not be a danger at the time of evaluation?

Quote

But you and the absolutists see ANYTHING approaching a SANE attempt to keep people like Cho from getting weapons as the ULTIMATE slippery slope to be feared.

By the same token, the gun grabbers want ANYONE that has EVER been seen by mental health professionals to be arbitrarily banned - just because.

Sounds like prior restraint, to me.

Quote

I am of the opinion that not EVERYONE and people like Cho in particular should not have unfettered access to weapons.

So, you think someone who was NOT admitted and was NOT judged to be a danger should be banned just because they've been to the psychiatrist?

Quote

Last I checked... I was agreeing with the SCOTUS

Kindly show where they've said that.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

I own NOTHING that chambers 7.62 x 39

But thanks for trying to infer that I would be willing to own a "commie" weapon, I guess in your mind anyone who owns a "commie" gun is a commie huh. see what ASSume gets ya...

You claim to have fired a number of SKS rifles (almost identical to AK's):
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3065352;#3065352

And you apparently DID own some 7.62 x 39 rifles at one time:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3390561;#3390283

So what does that say about your willingness to own a commie weapon? Well, it seems to indicate that you were certainly willing at one time in the past, and now for some reason you want to portray yourself as too good to do that.

And finally, it's funny the way you try and criticize me for assumptions, and then turn right around and make one yourself about what must be in my own mind in relation to commie guns and commies. That's one of those "Pot, meet Kettle" things.

I got them at a very good price.. free and sold them off to guys who just could not live without them.

I just found it interesting that you ALWAYS try to bust my chops on ANY and EVERYTHING...
Its very stalkerish John .. you and BUTTers should get togehter.. lots in common Birds of a feather and all

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

I own NOTHING that chambers 7.62 x 39

But thanks for trying to infer that I would be willing to own a "commie" weapon, I guess in your mind anyone who owns a "commie" gun is a commie huh. see what ASSume gets ya...

You claim to have fired a number of SKS rifles (almost identical to AK's):
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3065352;#3065352

And you apparently DID own some 7.62 x 39 rifles at one time:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3390561;#3390283

So what does that say about your willingness to own a commie weapon? Well, it seems to indicate that you were certainly willing at one time in the past, and now for some reason you want to portray yourself as too good to do that.

And finally, it's funny the way you try and criticize me for assumptions, and then turn right around and make one yourself about what must be in my own mind in relation to commie guns and commies. That's one of those "Pot, meet Kettle" things.

Gawd, forgive me, But , I love the smell of a "Bitch Slap" in the afternoon!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I got them at a very good price.. free and sold them off to guys who just could not live without them.

I just found it interesting that you ALWAYS try to bust my chops on ANY and EVERYTHING...

Only when you claim things that seem to contradict each other, as in this instant case. In one post you say you don't own any commie rifles, and in other posts you admit to having owned commie rifles. So clarification is necessary. That's got nothing to do with stalking. That's just you throwing around your hateful rhetoric again, like the childish capitalizing of the word "butt" in someone's nickname. When caught in a contradiction, instead of resorting to immature name-calling, perhaps you should just try explaining in a civil manner. After all, people who own guns and use nasty rhetoric are under the microscope right now...

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Funny but the SCOTUS seems to think that those with issues like Cho.. should be denied

Or did I miss something there

Got a cite for that, where the SC says that someone who only WENT to a psychiatrist should be banned?

Quote

Personally I want people like him that are "acting wierd" and have been to the shrinks to be put on a wait and see list, rahter than letting them run amuck after a shopping spree at Houston Gun Emporium.

So, you want anyone who has seen a psychiatrist to be summarily banned, even though they were determined to not be a danger at the time of evaluation?

Quote

But you and the absolutists see ANYTHING approaching a SANE attempt to keep people like Cho from getting weapons as the ULTIMATE slippery slope to be feared.

By the same token, the gun grabbers want ANYONE that has EVER been seen by mental health professionals to be arbitrarily banned - just because.

Sounds like prior restraint, to me.

Quote

I am of the opinion that not EVERYONE and people like Cho in particular should not have unfettered access to weapons.

So, you think someone who was NOT admitted and was NOT judged to be a danger should be banned just because they've been to the psychiatrist?

Quote

Last I checked... I was agreeing with the SCOTUS

Kindly show where they've said that.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27216


SCOTUS Declares DC Gun Ban Unconstitutional
by Todd Gaziano


- In a landmark opinion by Scalia, the Court held that the right to keep and bear arms, recognized in the Second Amendment, is an individual right of all Americans unconnected with service in a militia. Americans may use arms like handguns for traditionally lawful purposes, especially self-defense within the home.

- Six District of Columbia residents originally brought suit challenging the gun ban that virtually forbids the ownership of any handgun and outlaws the functional storage or use of any long gun within the District for self defense. The High Court heard the remaining claim of a D.C. special policeman (Dick Heller) who wanted a license to keep a handgun at home.

- Today, the High Court ordered the District to grant Dick Heller’s license to keep his gun at his home.

- Naturally, the Court also held that the right is not without its limits, and suggested that laws forbidding felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns, imposing certain licensing conditions, and limiting possession in such sensitive places as schools and government buildings may be permissible.

Sorry but that is NOT gun grabbing

Did you actually READ this???? the posting by ShotGun???

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599204144800

The real question in Tucson, though, is why the alleged shooter, 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner, was allowed to buy the murder weapon in the first place. Beyond the clearly delusional nature of online videos ascribed to him, Loughner was suspended last year from Pima Community College apparently because of mental problems. According to the college, he was told he could return only if he obtained "a mental health clearance indicating, in the opinion of a mental health professional, his presence at the College does not present a danger to himself or others." The Army also denied Loughner's application for unspecified reasons. It's unclear what other organizations or agencies might have been aware of Loughner's dangerous mental state. Still, he passed a background check, and late last year legally bought the 9-mm Glock 19 semiautomatic handgun allegedly used in the shootings. (Read "What Motivated Giffords' Shooter?")
As far back as the Gun Control Act of 1968, there have been federal laws against selling weapons to mentally ill individuals. But the Virginia Tech tragedy in 2007, in which the shooter Cho Seung-Hui was able to pass two federal gun background checks even after a state court ruled that he was dangerously mentally ill, highlighted the need for better record-keeping and interagency communication to enforce those laws. (More than 30 people died in the incident.) Saying that unstable individuals are disqualified from buying firearms is meaningless if the national background-check system, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), has no record of their illness. That's why the Brady organization was proud to announce on Friday, just a day before the Tucson shootings, that the number of records of mental illness in the NICS database had more than doubled since Virginia Tech, to more than 1 million records. (See TIME's complete coverage of the Tucson shooting.)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Gawd, forgive me, But , I love the smell of a "Bitch Slap" in the afternoon!

I guess that is a holdover from your former profession... I suppose its better than being all stabby

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

- Naturally, the Court also held that the right is not without its limits, and suggested that laws forbidding felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns, imposing certain licensing conditions, and limiting possession in such sensitive places as schools and government buildings may be permissible.

"Laws forbidding felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns" - that's GCA '68, not your 'he saw a psychiatrist'.

Fail.

Quote

Did you actually READ this???? the posting by ShotGun???

Sure did - care to show where Loehner or Cho was adjudicated mentally defective, judged a danger to themself or committed to a mental institution? You know, something in line with "laws forbidding felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns" like the SC said?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

I got them at a very good price.. free and sold them off to guys who just could not live without them.

I just found it interesting that you ALWAYS try to bust my chops on ANY and EVERYTHING...

Only when you claim things that seem to contradict each other, as in this instant case. In one post you say you don't own any commie rifles, and in other posts you admit to having owned commie rifles. So clarification is necessary. That's got nothing to do with stalking. That's just you throwing around your hateful rhetoric again, like the childish capitalizing of the word "butt" in someone's nickname. When caught in a contradiction, instead of resorting to immature name-calling, perhaps you should just try explaining in a civil manner. After all, people who own guns and use nasty rhetoric are under the microscope right now...

It SEEMS you have a perception and memory issue John you said Commie AK..

Quote

I wouldn't want the police to show up on your doorstep some day looking to confiscate your commie AK rifle, just because someone accused you of being full of political hatred just like the Tuscon shooter, and was worried about you going violent likewise.

Oh and perhaps NOW we understand why YOU are so paranoid about those you fear as "gun grabbers"

If you are doing nothing wrong what do YOU have to fear so much hmmmmmm??? I see some interesting political hatred from you and your fellow travellers daily