skypuppy

No different that the logic that says the chances of me ever needing a gun in my lifetime are minuscule, so I better carry one around all the time. Just like I carry a fire extinguisher with me every where I go. No one is telling you you need to carry a gun (or a fire extinguisher) around all the time if you don't want to. They're just asking you not to try to tell them they can't carry one around if they want to do so responsibly... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

and some would bounce the back of his head off the door, causing him to loop uncontrollably and result in them not even releasing film of the freefall part of the jump, just the canopy. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

you don't think it's a problem to close down half the gunshops in the state and throw those people out of work>? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

And all the Rambo wannabes around here reckon they wouldn't have any problem in such a scenario, and want to arm KINDERGARTEN teachers so they can shoot a nutter who surprises them in their classroom full of little kids. ______________________________________________ Maybe you should pay attention Kallend. Wayne Lapierre never stated that at all. He did state the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun -- he didn't say we have to arm KINDERGARTEN teachers - he suggested you could have armed guards. And I didn't hear any Rambo wannabes saying they wouldn't have any problems in such scenarios. I believe most of the pro-gun people here have indeed said that it would be a difficult situation to be in. However, and I agree with them, most of them say that you (and other innocent people around) are in a MUCH BETTER POSITION if you have a gun in one of these situations, then if you just lie down and play dead. Is it a guarantee no innocent people will die? No? Does it give a chance that fewer innocent people will die? Yes, it may... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

So the US's ALL TIME LEADING SNIPER, armed, at a gun range, is shot dead and the perp escapes. And all the Rambo wannabes around here reckon they wouldn't have any problem in such a scenario, and want to arm KINDERGARTEN teachers so they can shoot a nutter who surprises them in their classroom full of little kids. Talk about living in cloud cuckoo land! I haven't heard anyone say that but you. Talk about living in cloud cuckoo land! If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

you have mental problems, quade. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

It seems to me that the men on the ground assumed it was legal because they ordered to do it (mostly). The higher up mucky-mucks knew it was against the constitution when they ordered it, but didn't care. They resisted the court injunctions for weeks until they couldn't any longer, then stopped the confiscations. It took the city over 3 years to comply to the order to return the weapons (some of which had actually been destroyed in front of their owners). Some of this delay was because the authorities out and out refused to issue receipts to gun owners when they took the weapons. But some of it was also because the city itself refused for months to admit they ever took guns from their owners. They only admitted they had them under threat of the mayor and solicitor being held in contempt. it is worth noting that the city solicitor was fined PERSONALLY for concealing facts in the lawsuit. So it is indeed a case of abuse of power (taking the guns) which was deemed to be illegal only after 1000's of weapons had ended up being destroyed and taking 3 years to get weapons back, if they were any good. Not to mention the civilians that were beaten up in the process (who knows how many were beaten up without cameras, or had their cameras taken as well). I can find no indication that any compensation was ever given for any of the weapons, although it looks like the city had to pay legal costs for the other side (the NRA and SAF fronted the lawsuit) when they lost. Even after clarification from state lawmakers passing a law to specifically forbid this happening again, the chief of police says he would do it again all over. I can't believe this didn't make the news more at the time. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

http://offgridsurvival.com/decoratedcombatveteran-arrested-newyorkfelonies-armagazines/ yup. this sure saves the children... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I thought LEO and military would not carry out unconstitutional orders. I have seen lots of boasting about this lately. Wha happened? There is a video on youtube of a guardsman (brought in with his unit from Utah) who did go to his superior and tell them that his men would not go against the constitution and disarm civilians which they were hearing rumors about, but in the area they were posted they weren't doing that anyways. It seems that there was a lot of confusion about whether this was legal or not (amongst LEO). The governor of the state and/or the mayor (both democrats) may have ordered it, or it may have been the police chief's idea (it went on for about 3 weeks before an injunction was put in place to stop it). It seems it was the city that kept stored weapons (although many may have been destroyed on the street, some were in front of their owners), since they were eventually made to return them (although they had allowed them to deteriorate). I hope that the city was sued for compensation. It seemed to take place in more than one jurisdiction, so it seems like it had to be more than just one police chief, but I don't know anything about the regional politics down there. Since then, although no one has taken responsibility, the governor did sign a new law to make it illegal to disarm citizens without cause (as did some 21 states), but as you would see in my original post, the current police chief seems to think he would still go ahead and do it again. i have to wonder if this is the police chiefs in the states, similar to what is happening about the First Nations protests in Canada where police are refusing to step in due to the old Ipperwash dispute where an Indian was killed and police were held accountable after an inquiry. I'm wondering if the events that inspired an action like this were the Rodney King riots in LA in which we saw armed patrols walking the streets, and police developed a protocol that in future riot-type events they would disarm everyone. It seems though that might have back-fired seeing the legislative response to enact laws preventing them doing this in several states. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

again, watch the video. Maybe you won't be so surprised... A group of large CHIPs kicking a door down and throwing a 58 year-old 90 lb grandmother on the floor and breaking her arm in 3 places -- all when they knew there were cameras rolling -- shows these guys just didn't care if it was legal or not. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Did you look at the link? We;re talking about in the US, within the last 10 years, on a massive scale (thousands of guns). No one seems to be taking responsibility for it happening (national guardsmen, police from several states taking part, marshals, new orleans police) -- and no one seems to have apologized. And the fact is, although it was later to be judged that it was wrong, many of the weapons were completely destroyed, without compensation, after they were illegally confiscated (although they claimed it was legal) and while it was sorted out. On a national basis, IF laws were passed by presidential decree or otherwise, which were later to be overturned by SCOTUS (which so many other of Obama's hail mary passes seem to be doing), where is the protection for people already harmed by the laws 'so-called passing' before it's overturned? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

watch the video in the link. They went door-to-door with ar-15's at-the-ready. They set up blockades as people were being ordered to evacuate (and to take their gun collections with them) -- and they confiscated those weapons. They pulled over people in boats who were taking their gun collections out of their flooded homes. They pulled up to tug boats who were towing barges they'd been asked to bring in with supplies, pointing weapons at them, and confiscated any hunting rifles or shotguns on board. They tackled a 58 year-old grandma who showed them she had a (unloaded) revolver to protect herself (inside her own home) kicking in her door and breaking her shoulder in three places , arresting her for not wanting to give it up... I was not really aware of this entire situation, but if you google gun grab hurricane katrina, you can see this was a big operation... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS67NUO5OAg New Orleans gun grab. Guns taken without search warrants, without issuing receipts. Some smashed against the curb as the owners watched. Gun owners beat up if they expressed any reluctance to hand over their guns. Despite court rulings it took 3 years for the city to start giving the guns back from storage, and most had been irreparably damaged by poor storage conditions. The city attorney was actually assigned some NRA and SAT costs personally for his recalcitrance. upon being told that Governor Blanco had signed into law a new Louisiana statute that prohibited law enforcement from confiscating legally-owned firearms during the time of a civil emergency, current Superintendent of Police Warren Riley made the following comment: “During circumstances like that, we cannot allow people to walk the streets carrying guns. As law enforcement officers, we will confiscate the weapon if the person is walking down the street, and they may be arrested.” So the current chief of police in New Orleans has stated in similar circumstances, the police will again confiscate legally-owned firearms, never mind that Louisiana citizens have the right to carry openly, can carry legally in their cars, and can carry concealed with a state-issued concealed carry permit. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

How many people do you think have sent emails to the white house telling them that they are on the wrong track on gun control, or that they should quit? What makes this any different?> If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Lol well several dumbass states have introduced legislation like this Unfortunately now its my dumbass state. Fun fact: It is illegal for an employer in MO to fire you for owning a firearm. Thanks to Rep. Wanda Brown. It is NOT illegal to be fired for sexual orientation in MO. Thanks to Rep. Wanda Brown. Here is the email I sent her when she introduced the bill about making it illegal to be fired for owning a gun.... "Miss Brown Please step down from public service. Your complete and utter ignorance is such an insult to all of Missouri. Please please, never again cast a vote that could actually affect someones life. You should probably try something more along the lines of recycling old cans. Thanks. XXXXXX" She didn't respond ;[. My state is fcked. You expected a response to that smartass comment? She was, presumably, elected by a majority of constituents in her state. Did you vote? Then maybe you should run against her next time. If you win, you can make legislation... I think his commentary about Brown is perfectly reasonable. And I notice you said nothing to the other guy about all the filth he called Holder. Go away, little boy; you're not even trying. Not at all. He sent a message to Brown and then complained when she didn't reply to his obvious baiting. The other poster simply gave us his opinion of Holder, which may or may not be true. But I'm pretty sure he wasn't asking Holder a question. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Lol well several dumbass states have introduced legislation like this Unfortunately now its my dumbass state. Fun fact: It is illegal for an employer in MO to fire you for owning a firearm. Thanks to Rep. Wanda Brown. It is NOT illegal to be fired for sexual orientation in MO. Thanks to Rep. Wanda Brown. Here is the email I sent her when she introduced the bill about making it illegal to be fired for owning a gun.... "Miss Brown Please step down from public service. Your complete and utter ignorance is such an insult to all of Missouri. Please please, never again cast a vote that could actually affect someones life. You should probably try something more along the lines of recycling old cans. Thanks. XXXXXX" She didn't respond ;[. My state is fcked. You expected a response to that smartass comment? She was, presumably, elected by a majority of constituents in her state. Did you vote? Then maybe you should run against her next time. If you win, you can make legislation... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Seriously? You don't understand the everyday difference between an LEO and a regular Joe who wants a weapon for self defence? There are lots of things LEO's do to improve their chances that a regular guy wouldn't want to or need to. seems to me you're presupposing that 'a regular guy' thinks just like you do. That may be true of you and your friends where you live. But me and many of my friends have almost a diametrically-opposed vision of what 'a regular guy' would want or need to do, and as far as I know, we're pretty much all 'regular guys' around here. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

fortunately, as far as I know, such a law hasn't been passed. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I consider it discussing, not arguing. I think people that are "pro-gun" misconstrue what people who are "anti-gun" are against. Or they mistakenly think we honestly believe guns are capable of moving around and killing people. Of course the problem is the PEOPLE with the guns. We just have no way to stop manufacturing stupid people. We can stop manufacturing guns. Pitbulls arent going around killing people and attacking old ladies ...or fighting each other to the death....because thats what they do.....PEOPLE acting irresponsibly leads to that type of thing.... We cant stop pitbulls from existing, we can restrict the ability for people to possess them. I UNDERSTAND you dont want to lose something you have, the ability to have a personal collection of guns to use responsibly. I would like to have a pit bull so I understand your desire to do what you want.... I also understand society has decided the only way to deal with the irresponsible ones among us is to take away the ability to BE irresponsible by restricting access to whatever it is people are being stupid with. We agree on making guns harder to get, not quite on the degree but much closer than most "pro-gun" people I have discussed the issue with. I really would be sympathetic to my dad losing his rifles because he has no real need for them (and would never be out murdering kids) but if that helped save a class of kids some day, i can live with that. you have no right to dictate to anyone that they can't have guns unless they are a convicted felon, or mentally unstable. Similarly, there should never be a registration of firearms, because, speaking from experience, it can lead to confiscation. This happened in canada with certain firearms just in the last year or two when they decided to re-classify some rifles. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Watch Joe Biden at 1:45 PM ET Before Vice President Joe Biden introduced a set of ideas to help reduce gun violence, he kicked off a national conversation. He wanted to make sure that he heard from people from every perspective about the steps we need to take to protect kids and make our communities safer. And that dialogue isn't over. Today, in a hangout hosted by Google and moderated by Hari Sreenivasan from PBS NewsHour, Vice President Biden will speak with a group of Google+ users about the White House policy recommendations and answer their questions. And we want you to join us. What: Google+ Hangout with Vice President Joe Biden When: Thursday, January 24 at 1:45 PM ET Where: Live on WhiteHouse.gov Maybe he can tell us if the AR 15 was used in the shooting? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I'm thinking there's a box like 'alcohol present' and they check it off because it was present, but maybe some LEO's could chime up here. bottom line is, I don't trust statistics. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Friends don't let friends drink drunk. But really, I bumped this post because I have another analogy (I'm a Hofstadter fan, deal with it) In response to drunk driving we have BAC limits. Great. We have field sobriety tests and breathalyzers. Excellent. We have harsh penalties for DUIs. All right. We have TV adverts running regularly. Good thinking. We have random police checkpoints. Kinda annoying, but I guess maybe it helps. We have inflated statistics about "alcohol related traffic accidents" to include accidents where anyone involved was drunk, even passengers in the not-at-fault vehicle. Wait, why would you do that? We've banned whiskey and shot glasses, because shots of whiskey get you really drunk and you still feel like you can drive... ...oh wait no we didn't because that's idiotic. My understanding is that if you just bought a case of beer to take home and are in an accident, that will be considered an alcohol-related accident, even if you haven't been drinking. Is this wrong? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

the whole country is basing their conclusions and legislation on those incomplete, incorrect reports. And the most complete, most correct possible reports are being sequestered. By the time they're released, all the legislation will have been written based on incomplete and incorrect info fueled by emotion. "gimme a break" please! give us all a break from the media pushing their agenda down our throats and being aided by the courts. As Howard said in his biography about bringing gun control to australia -- gun control was not a 'response' to the Port Arthur massacre -- he merely saw the Port Arthur massacre as providing an 'opportunity' to bring in his plans to restrict guns.... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

As I stated before, slavery was on the way out already, and the spur for the southern states seceding was the north's pushing through laws that took away states' rights, AFTER the southern states had stated, unequivocably, that pushing through this legislation would result in them seceding from the union. Even after that point, although Lincoln and his ilk had pushed it that far, they could have backed off and allowed the states to secede and try to negotiate them to come back. They didn't do that. As far as other wars, many of them were indeed justified. The war between the states however was a war between countrymen, a particularly bloody war, and really the first 'modern' war with newer technologies and huge numbers of casualties. As the people holding power, the union had many options other than forcing a war. Missouri and some other states may have declared officially Union because of local politics, but many if not most of the people in those slave-owning states were still confederates. And it was Lincoln and his cronies that ideologically pushed things to point of a war that killed a million and left the south in a perilous state economically for possibly half a century after the war was ended. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Naming Lincoln as our 'worst President' shows only that you haven't researched the history and doings of all the OTHER Presidents. If you are judging Lincoln strictly because he was minding the store when the Civil War began, well...that conflict was building up for at least a decade beforehand. Lincoln did the right thing by trying to hold the Union together, and our country as it exists today is a direct result of that effort. Not only did the war free the slaves, ending a nearly 250-year ugly history of kidnapping, slave trading, and abuse, but it finally brought us together as a nation. It began the process of civil rights, and enabled us better security because we were still one country from coast to coast. Your comment contains so many profound ramifications that it is difficult to address. Some good things happened later as a result of the War Between The States (preferred Southern name for it) but the war itself was a terrible thing, of course. It still affects us today I think, especially politically. I wouldn't worry about any repeal or severe restrictions on the Second Amendment. That would be worse than when the Feds passed Prohibition. There are between 250 million and up to a BILLION privately-held weapons in America, and that doesn't count anything with the military or in sporting goods stores. What people are saying is that because there are tens of thousands of gun deaths in the US, year in, year out, that sensible rules need to be in place. I'm in favor of banning hi-cap magazines, military-style assault weapons, sure. But I'm MORE in favor of making people who want to own a gun pass a few checks first. And be trained in their use. Like cars, guns can kill if you don't know how to (drive) use them. You seem to assume that the war was the only way to abolish slavery. I don't think this is true. Lincoln was more then just "minding the store" regarding the Civil War. Keeping the Union together at the cost of 600,000 casualties on both sides was not worth it. Would things be better with out that? I don't know, but there would be a lot fewer dead people. I don't think it really contributed that much to Civil Rights. Blacks weren't treated very well before the Civil War or after in both the North and the South. New estimates seem to be citing a figure of 750,000 soldiers killed during the civil war, and a quick search put the civilian deaths at somewhere around 200-250 thousand. So in my estimation, Lincoln was pretty much the man responsible for about a million american deaths. I think one major reason he gets an easy pass from history is that he was assassinated. If he'd lived through and been defeated in politics and died of old age, he wouldn't be seen as a martyr. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone