muff528

Exactly! (that's why I put "prevent" in parentheses) No law would or could prevent that ...unless the firearm is prevented from being manufactured in the first place. As long as the gun exists there is always the possibility that it could end up in the "wrong hands". Every firearm has a paper trail ...right up to the point that it is stolen or illegally transferred. I'm pretty sure that if the firearm is used in a crime, the last legal owner might have some explaining to do. 1. What, specifically, did the gun lobby do to ensure this easy access to guns ...and why? How is it to the advantage of "big gun" to let crazies and criminals get guns so easily? 2. What, specifically, can be done to fix the problem deliberately created by the gun lobby? I might be mistaken but I think your issues with the laws are here (in bold): Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA? A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector. [18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30] Q: May an unlicensed person obtain ammunition from an out-of-State source? Yes, provided he or she is not a person prohibited from possessing or receiving ammunition. [18 U.S.C. 922(g) and (n)] I think you advocate some sort of psychological evaluation for each purchase or transfer?

My comment really didn't come from "outrage". Also, I'm sure you even understand that it really had nothing to do with any failings of the criminal justice system, or supervisors or lawyers. In the context of John's point that "the gun lobby" had deliberately rendered gun laws "toothless", I was simply, if not sarcastically, pointing out that here is a clear case of someone who shouldn't have a gun getting one and committing murder. Laws unambiguously "prevent" this guy from having access to a gun ...unlike many mass murderers who had not yet been identified as "crazy". It was a good example of how laws, toothless or not, don't keep guns from someone who intends to get one regardless of consequences. Many of the crazies expect to die in the end. I'm still not sure where John is going with his comments regarding "the gun lobby" or background checks, or even mental evaluations, but if we're going to assign culpability, who gets it in the firefighter murders? If we can't keep a convicted murderer under supervised parole from getting a gun and committing arson and murder how are we going to prevent crazies who have yet to be identified as such from getting firearms? Yes, there are answers. But that brings my question ...how far do we want to go? Two quotes -- “The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it." ~JFK's speechwriter “Children are the world's most valuable resource and its best hope for the future.” ~also JFK's speechwriter

News quote about the shooter: "He had previously served a 17-year jail sentence after being convicted of killing his grandmother." What the heck was he doing out of prison? And if he had served a prison sentence for murder, then he was disqualified from gun ownership. But he managed to get one anyway, and did so in a state with very tough gun laws. Gun laws don't stop murderers. The real question here seems to be: Why was this man let out of prison? http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/us/new-york-firefighters-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 This one was easy. Here we have someone who is arguably crazy and has already demonstrated his penchant for killing. No "what if" questions here! I say we should arrest his parole "supervisor" and whoever made the decision to let him go in the first place. The American civil liberties lobby and criminal defense lawyers have rendered the criminal justice system toothless. Now we have 2 firefighters lured to their murders.

How did the law fail in the Sandy Hook case? Mom bought the guns legally. Lanza was crazy. Unfortunately Sandy Hook is not an isolated case of a crazy person committing murder with a gun. Not even this month. Your question is, therefore, not really relevant to the general discussion. Fair enough ....but that question and the other 7 questions in that post are directly relevant to your "toothless" comment if not the "general" discussion. Specifically, what provisions (or lack thereof) in gun laws (relating to crazies having access to guns) were influenced by the NRA or the "gun lobby" in a deliberate effort to cause the laws to be ineffectual? ETA- and what specific provisions can be added to ensure crazies don't have access?

Unfortunately the man is at odds with his constituency, because I've heard that gun owners don't trust Politicians to simply create a database whose sole purpose is to prevent crazies from getting guns. "Sole" is the key word here. If we are going to have a list of crazy people it should be used for more than just denying 2nd Amendment rights. It could/should also be available to the DMV, elections officials, employers, armed services, social clubs, law enforcement, TSA, community organizers, theme parks, homeowners' associations, etc. Those folks need to make informed decisions, too. Might also be useful to someone thinking about getting hitched.

Egads, I wish people would stop using that tired, old cliche; it adds no value to a discussion. And it's thousands of years old, you know. For example: "Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.” Plato, ca. +/- 340 B.C. Interestingly enough, this Plato fellow didn't mention the crappy music the kids were playing too loudly. You'd think it would have shaken the 27-inchers off of their chariots.

Really? That's the line you're taking? Then I'm sure you'll have no problems showing where elements of the pro gun lobby have pushed for heavier restrictions on access to guns by those with mental issues. By listening to what they say. Personally, I have no problem with writing all kinds of toothy laws to keep crazy people from getting guns. But first I want to see a very specific definition of what exactly makes a person too crazy to have a gun and specifically how that determination is made and by whom. For example, if I were the determiner, I might start by issuing a blanket denial to all of the crazy lefties in the country. So I likely wouldn't get the job.

How did the law fail in the Sandy Hook case? Mom bought the guns legally. Lanza was crazy. Did the law fail to address the fact that there was a crazy person in the household? Should she have been denied the right to acquire a firearm because her crazy son lived with her? Should the law have required that she prove the guns would be secure? Not being contentious, but were things like these deliberately opposed by the gun lobby? Just trying to understand where you think a breakdown may have been in the law. How about other cases where the shooter was not previously known to be "crazy", but also did not own the firearms himself? What specific points should be written into a non-toothless law? What specific provisions were included or not included because of the "gun lobby".

As discussion of this is going on in the other thread In any event It is an idea way past its time Our central Florida county has had at least one armed, uniformed Sheriff's deputy ("School Resource Officer") present at each middle and high school for years. Some elementary schools, too. They are more than just an armed security guard standing around waiting for "something" to happen. They act as a direct and accessible link between parents, students and the school to local LE by sharing information that affects security of the neighborhoods and the schools. (gang activity, safety concerns, etc.) Correction - In addition to Sheriff's deputies, various cities within the county provide police officers for the program. However, an officer or deputy may be assigned to more than one school. I would like to see 1 cop/school.

I agree that the 3rd point is the toughest one to address. We do need to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of "crazies". But Lanza was known to be out of balance. His mother knew it and still he was able to get his hands on her weapons. It could be said that, as his mother and as an owner of guns, she should have ensured they were not accessible to him in any way, including theft. So, maybe some negligence on her part? But back to the 3rd point. How do we decide who is or is not nuts? Who decides? Who decides who decides!? I'm sure that there are some who would deem a person "crazy" simply for seeking to acquire a gun. How would the evaluator be evaluated? When do we decide? Maybe a mental health evaluation is scheduled when an application is made for acquiring a firearm (from any source)? What results of such an evaluation would disqualify an applicant? How about "extreme" conservative or progressive views? How about someone who is exercising his 1st Amendment rights to free speech or religious freedom? Also, if someone who "passes" a psychological evaluation and ultimately gets his gun and then, at some future time, goes off the rails and commits mass murder, who is responsible? The evaluator?

So far, so good. The parents like it, the schools like it and the kids like it. ...although I'm sure we are having to live without one or two other projects or services we can't live without. I think.

As discussion of this is going on in the other thread In any event It is an idea way past its time Our central Florida county has had at least one armed, uniformed Sheriff's deputy ("School Resource Officer") present at each middle and high school for years. Some elementary schools, too. They are more than just an armed security guard standing around waiting for "something" to happen. They act as a direct and accessible link between parents, students and the school to local LE by sharing information that affects security of the neighborhoods and the schools. (gang activity, safety concerns, etc.)

Don't do anything with WBC. Let them stand out there in the open and show their true colors. Don't do PGR, don't do this 'Angel' thing to block them people are talking about in the media. Let them be out there in the open in all their 'glory.' Only then will everyone know what they are truly about. Yep. For precisely this reason I'm against "hate speech" laws. (Well, that and that whole 1st Amendment thing.)

My first "hop and pop" was really a "hop n pop n chop n pop again". 16th jump. (actually I think the RSL beat me to the 2nd pop.)

These are all aliens! You can tell by their pupils!

Reminds me of the old joke about the kid who comes home from Sunday School. His mom asks him what he learned and he tells the story of Moses escaping Pharaoh ...complete with tanks, pontoon bridges, helicopters and other high-tech paraphernalia. Mom says "That's not what they told you!" The kid says "I know, Mom ...but if I told you what they told me you would think I'm lying!"

I think the entire universe will simply cease to exist, instantaneously, in its entirety. Of course, it will then be replaced immediately thereafter with an EXACT DUPLICATE in its place. This will all take place seamlessly, and will only be detectable by the most sensitive of scientific instruments. When these instruments cease to exist, their replacements will indicate an infinitesimal irregularity that will baffle the replacement scientists, who will little suspect that the Dirac Delta they witnessed was the discontinuity between the Before Universe and the After Universe. This simple and obvious outcome was, for some reason, left out of the list of available options. BSBD, Winsor This happens every "Planck Instant" ...but instead of being replaced with an exact duplicate it is replaced with an infinite number of universes, each with an infinitesimal difference (or not). In turn, each "new" universe is replaced with another infinite number of universes in the next instant in the same way ...and so on and so on and scooby dooby dooby ...... ad infinitum. Maybe not.

Well then, problem solved. The city needs to turn down the grant money and move on to the next crisis.

If security is really the concern, the city could fence all the airport property northwest of runway 4-22 and leave the rest of the airport alone. They could have some nice gates or openings at the taxiways for access to the runway for the GA folks and the security guard would not have to patrol such a large perimeter. For security purposes, this would encompass all of their buildings, planes, etc. and would actually provide greater control over security for them and their lessees' property (IMO). They almost never use 18-36 anyway. Maybe another fence around the water treatment plant if they want to use up more grant money. I suspect that "No one wants to see the grant money go away..." has a lot (everything) to do with it. Why fret over losing grant money for a fence that is not wanted or needed?

Yeah, I agree with all that stuff immediately after opening. But then, for the flight back to the DZ, I agree with releasing the brakes first rather than leaving them stowed in hopes that that would help flatten the glide slope a little ...and then finding out, when the brakes are finally released, that there is a control problem.

Yep. I've always tried to spot the landing area and try to see which direction it appears to be going. If it gives the illusion that it is "ascending" towards the horizon (or away from me), I know I'm not going to make it and I look for an alternate landing area. If it appears to be "descending" (moving down and away from the horizon but towards me) I'll probably make it OK. Also, I'm in the release-the brakes-and-check-controls-first camp. The outcome of the control check would probably influence other decisions I might have to make.

Here's a handy quick-reference: Wikipedia article: Freedom of speech by country LMAO!. From the Wiki article: "The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, provides, in Article 19, that: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKmJPnAGUJk

Here's last year's truck. Engine in front on that one.

Yeah, but what a tragic waste. All that HP could have been used for going really, really fast. +1 Fast is fun.