In an effort to show the stupidity of those "feel good" gun laws that were passed in the wake of Sandy Hook, some manufactures are changing the AR-15 and making it legal again.
Charles C. W. Cooke wrote:Manufacturers Change Look of AR-15; Rifle Is Now Legal in New York State
Pass a stupid law, get a stupid result. This, Clash Daily reports, is a remodeled AR-15, and it is legal in New York despite the state’s “assault weapons” ban:
When the opponents of “assault weapon” bans argue that it is preposterous for the state to ban firearms based on the way they look, they really mean it. It is. The rifle in the photograph above is no more or less powerful than the one that has been banned; it just looks different. And, because the SAFE Act was, typically, interested only in cosmetic questions, a simple change to its aesthetic rendered the rifle legal once more. As Clash Daily’s Jonathan S. explains:
Jonathan S. wrote: Prototypes for the newly designed AR-15 are hitting gun shops across New York, as gun shops and machinists have designed a rifle that complies with the anti-gun law. At least one gun shop has received a letter from state police saying that the new AR-15 style rifles should be legal in the state as long as they don’t have some of the features that the law prohibits.
The new gun law bans all kinds of semi-automatic rifles that have been labeled with the “assault” term even though these are very common rifles and are no more powerful than the average hunting rifle.
Features like adjustable stocks, pistols grips, and flash suppressors has been deemed to be unlawful on these rifles, mainly because it makes them LOOK mean. And we all know how little these anti-gun lawmakers really know about guns, as the “Ghost gun” video illustrated.
The new AR-15 design did away with the pistol grip which gives the gun an odd paintball gun look. The stock is fixed as well, but at least New Yorkers now have a legal way to own an AR-15, a fact which is still driving some gun control activists mad.
Reading this story, one would almost conclude that legislation that deals only with the superficial and the irrelevant is inherently silly. Curious.
This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.
Seaward wrote: This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.
Seaward wrote: This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.
Seaward wrote: This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.
Seaward wrote: This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.
are you trolling?
I'm quoting.
video wont play for me, I'm at work right now, computers here are the worst of the awful.
Are you quoting as in you agree these are the appropriate terms? or just quoting to make fun?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: This is what happens when people who do not know the subject matter are allowed to make legislation concerning said matter.
It's what happens when the law forbids gun control and people try to achieve something by workarounds, and then the workarounds are worked around.
So-called "assault" weapons could easily be dispensed with by banning self-loading weapons. People would still be able to have revolvers, shotguns and bolt-action rifles. These are certainly good enough for target shooting, hunting and home defence.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's what happens when the law forbids gun control and people try to achieve something by workarounds, and then the workarounds are worked around.
So-called "assault" weapons could easily be dispensed with by banning self-loading weapons. People would still be able to have revolvers, shotguns and bolt-action rifles. These are certainly good enough for target shooting, hunting and home defence.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: This is what happens when people who do not know the subject matter are allowed to make legislation concerning said matter.
It's what happens when the law forbids gun control and people try to achieve something by workarounds, and then the workarounds are worked around.
So-called "assault" weapons could easily be dispensed with by banning self-loading weapons. People would still be able to have revolvers, shotguns and bolt-action rifles. These are certainly good enough for target shooting, hunting and home defence.
And what would you suggest we do with all the legally purchased self-loading weapons we'd still have in circulation after such a law was passed?
Clearly, those would become ghost guns. Those right there have the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.
Seaward wrote: Clearly, those would become ghost guns. Those right there have the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.
This time around it made me chuckle. When I saw that video my brain leaked from my ear I think. But I'm almost certain that some California rifles have been made similar to that for years now.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: This is what happens when people who do not know the subject matter are allowed to make legislation concerning said matter.
It's what happens when the law forbids gun control and people try to achieve something by workarounds, and then the workarounds are worked around.
So-called "assault" weapons could easily be dispensed with by banning self-loading weapons. People would still be able to have revolvers, shotguns and bolt-action rifles. These are certainly good enough for target shooting, hunting and home defence.
And what would you suggest we do with all the legally purchased self-loading weapons we'd still have in circulation after such a law was passed?
I always like the law that prohibits a rifle that has the ability to attatch a bayonet. If someone was pointing a rifle at me, I believe one of the last things I would be worried about is a bayonet charge.
Seaward wrote: This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.
Seaward wrote: Clearly, those would become ghost guns. Those right there have the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.
This time around it made me chuckle. When I saw that video my brain leaked from my ear I think. But I'm almost certain that some California rifles have been made similar to that for years now.
Damn SAFE Act. Single handedly sank my ambitions to get stationed at Ft. Drum. I had to leave firearms behind when I moved to Japan. I am not leaving firearms behind because I am moving within my own damn country. It's a shame, I had a lot of extended family in that region.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: This is what happens when people who do not know the subject matter are allowed to make legislation concerning said matter.
It's what happens when the law forbids gun control and people try to achieve something by workarounds, and then the workarounds are worked around.
So-called "assault" weapons could easily be dispensed with by banning self-loading weapons. People would still be able to have revolvers, shotguns and bolt-action rifles. These are certainly good enough for target shooting, hunting and home defence.
And what would you suggest we do with all the legally purchased self-loading weapons we'd still have in circulation after such a law was passed?
Gun amnesty.
I'm sure that would work just wonderfully in the US.
Yes the fact that some legislators made themselves look stupid proves that forever anyone advocating tighter gun laws is naught but a twit themselves!
I absolutely can assure you if the so called experts on "guns" worked more with the people legislating we would have a lot less of this kind of thing happening, this is merely just another symptom of the utter lack of cooperation in politics.
The NRA refuses to work with anyone who dares even suggest a better more organized background check system (Even though they advocated it after Colombine, oh how things change huehuehe), so how in the mother of feth are we supposed to yknow, get the "gun" people and the legislators to sit down hmmm?
Also I love how people say that we can't pass gun legislation against self loading weapons because the government would have to get confiscate them, and that's not possible despite the fact, that it totally is, since mass recalls on products are regularly carried out by corporations with a lot less manpower the the government.
But please continue to rant about how guns are the single most important issue ever, and how by being an ass in favor of guns make you any better than an ass who's not in favor of guns.
Alexzandvar wrote: Yes the fact that some legislators made themselves look stupid proves that forever anyone advocating tighter gun laws is naught but a twit themselves!
I absolutely can assure you if the so called experts on "guns" worked more with the people legislating we would have a lot less of this kind of thing happening, this is merely just another symptom of the utter lack of cooperation in politics.
Experts on guns have no incentive to work with the anti-gun legislators. If you know X amount about guns, you cease buying into the relentlessly ill-informed bs they peddle.
Alexzandvar wrote: Yes the fact that some legislators made themselves look stupid proves that forever anyone advocating tighter gun laws is naught but a twit themselves!
I absolutely can assure you if the so called experts on "guns" worked more with the people legislating we would have a lot less of this kind of thing happening, this is merely just another symptom of the utter lack of cooperation in politics.
Experts on guns have no incentive to work with the anti-gun legislators. If you know X amount about guns, you cease buying into the relentlessly ill-informed bs they peddle.
The fact you live and work in DC yet continue to hype up the idea nobody in Washington has any idea what their doing just proves to me you really, really love to troll.
But anyway back to the argument: For every idiot who wants unreasonable restrictions on guns there are 2 more that would love to just see the very loophole intense laws we have been fixed and strengthened. Yet the NRA still refuses to work with even the reasonable people.
Also going by your logic, the NRA are ill-informed bullshitters because they made the argument for a better national backround check system complete with a well working record of all gun owners in case they develop or are found to be mentally ill and you treat the people
Also if you read my entire post you would see my final statement is that other people being silly is no reason to throw on your thomas jefferson outfit and start screaming about how evil government is and make yourself look just as silly!
Alexzandvar wrote: The fact you live and work in DC yet continue to hype up the idea nobody in Washington has any idea what their doing just proves to me you really, really love to troll.
I live in Virginia and in Virginia, just across the river from DC. Occasionally, I'm obliged to actually enter it. I'd never actually live in DC. Idiotic gun restrictions. Plenty of people in Washington have an idea of what they're doing. They just tend not to be politicians.
But anyway back to the argument: For every idiot who wants unreasonable restrictions on guns there are 2 more that would love to just see the very loophole intense laws we have been fixed and strengthened. Yet the NRA still refuses to work with even the reasonable people.
The NRA works with reasonable people all the time.
Also going by your logic, the NRA are ill-informed bullshitters because they made the argument for a better national backround check system complete with a well working record of all gun owners in case they develop or are found to be mentally ill and you treat the people
You might want to do a bit of fact-checking there.
But it's irrelevant either way, given that we don't prosecute for lying on 4473s.
Also if you read my entire post you would see my final statement is that other people being silly is no reason to throw on your thomas jefferson outfit and start screaming about how evil government is and make yourself look just as silly!
I read your entire post. At no point did you convince me you were qualified to give advice on how not to look silly.
But anyway back to the argument: For every idiot who wants unreasonable restrictions on guns there are 2 more that would love to just see the very loophole intense laws we have been fixed and strengthened. Yet the NRA still refuses to work with even the reasonable people.
1) The NRA is not our legal representatives. That’s the leftie boogeyman.
2) You don’t sign away rights.
3) There’s been enough compromise on our end already. In large portions of the country we’ve been compromised out of ownership .
Also going by your logic, the NRA are ill-informed bullshitters because they made the argument for a better national backround check system complete with a well working record of all gun owners in case they develop or are found to be mentally ill and you treat the people
1. And? A strengthened background check they support is not the same as the background check you would support.
2. Look to your lefties to see the people who don’t want mentallyy ill reported to the NCIS.
Also if you read my entire post you would see my final statement is that other people being silly is no reason to throw on your thomas jefferson outfit and start screaming about how evil government is and make yourself look just as silly!
Also I love how people say that we can't pass gun legislation against self loading weapons because the government would have to get confiscate them, and that's not possible despite the fact, that it totally is, since mass recalls on products are regularly carried out by corporations with a lot less manpower the the government.
How many people do you really think would give them up willingly?
I enjoy the revving up of the rhetoric that I'm sort of soft leftie looking to sign away your right, despite that immediately making you all look like you belong in some sort of Town Hall yelling at a congressman because you read something on Fox news
And I have yet to see evidence of the NRA working with reasonable people, bar of course there attempt shortly after the Colombine shootings.
But on to the nit and gritty: The government is not signing away your rights, indeed, I was bashed in the other thread for suggesting the modern clinging to the second amendment silly because in it's most literal terms allows naught but a well operated militia and if we took the constitution's and the bills of rights literally we would have very few of the freedoms we cling to much to today such as yknow PRIVACY.
But were Civilized now, we had planes, electricity, a working justice system, we infer things, we don't take the bible literally anymore (except for some loonies of course). We have the ability to look back and judge how to interpret a 200+ year old document and apply it today with out looking like an idiots or at least I hope we can.
But alas I think the next 10+ pages of this thread will be circle jerking over how evil the government is and how Obama and the democrat "The Lefties" are literally the cancer that is destroying America
Regardless of the outcome, I hope you all do realize how embarrassing you all look when you shout and scream about how evil the government and how you all are a bastion of morality, justice and the American way and then go to post in another thread about how we should be okay with torturing terrorists or how awful gay rights advocates are with zero self awareness of your hipocracy
Alexzandvar wrote: I enjoy the revving up of the rhetoric that I'm sort of soft leftie looking to sign away your right, despite that immediately making you all look like you belong in some sort of Town Hall yelling at a congressman because you read something on Fox news
And I have yet to see evidence of the NRA working with reasonable people, bar of course there attempt shortly after the Colombine shootings.
But on to the nit and gritty: The government is not signing away your rights, indeed, I was bashed in the other thread for suggesting the modern clinging to the second amendment silly because in it's most literal terms allows naught but a well operated militia and if we took the constitution's and the bills of rights literally we would have very few of the freedoms we cling to much to today such as yknow PRIVACY.
But were Civilized now, we had planes, electricity, a working justice system, we infer things, we don't take the bible literally anymore (except for some loonies of course). We have the ability to look back and judge how to interpret a 200+ year old document and apply it today with out looking like an idiots or at least I hope we can.
But alas I think the next 10+ pages of this thread will be circle jerking over how evil the government is and how Obama and the democrat "The Lefties" are literally the cancer that is destroying America
Regardless of the outcome, I hope you all do realize how embarrassing you all look when you shout and scream about how evil the government and how you all are a bastion of morality, justice and the American way and then go to post in another thread about how we should be okay with torturing terrorists or how awful gay rights advocates are with zero self awareness of your hipocracy
Alexzandvar wrote: I enjoy the revving up of the rhetoric that I'm sort of soft leftie looking to sign away your right, despite that immediately making you all look like you belong in some sort of Town Hall yelling at a congressman because you read something on Fox news
And I have yet to see evidence of the NRA working with reasonable people, bar of course there attempt shortly after the Colombine shootings.
But on to the nit and gritty: The government is not signing away your rights, indeed, I was bashed in the other thread for suggesting the modern clinging to the second amendment silly because in it's most literal terms allows naught but a well operated militia and if we took the constitution's and the bills of rights literally we would have very few of the freedoms we cling to much to today such as yknow PRIVACY.
But were Civilized now, we had planes, electricity, a working justice system, we infer things, we don't take the bible literally anymore (except for some loonies of course). We have the ability to look back and judge how to interpret a 200+ year old document and apply it today with out looking like an idiots or at least I hope we can.
But alas I think the next 10+ pages of this thread will be circle jerking over how evil the government is and how Obama and the democrat "The Lefties" are literally the cancer that is destroying America
Regardless of the outcome, I hope you all do realize how embarrassing you all look when you shout and scream about how evil the government and how you all are a bastion of morality, justice and the American way and then go to post in another thread about how we should be okay with torturing terrorists or how awful gay rights advocates are with zero self awareness of your hipocracy
I've reported you for continual insults and foul language. Either have a conversation like an adult or step out of the forum for a bit and cool down.
Also I love how people say that we can't pass gun legislation against self loading weapons because the government would have to get confiscate them, and that's not possible despite the fact, that it totally is, since mass recalls on products are regularly carried out by corporations with a lot less manpower the the government.
You're drawing a parallel between product recalls and door to door weapon confiscation?
Brilliant. Absolutely fething brilliant. Please carry on. This is good.
I recently watched Jon Oliver on the Daily Show compare the gun laws in the U.S. with the gun laws in Australia. At the end of the series in this special, he admitted that guns aren't the problem; people are. What I think this means is that Australia has better people than we do which I believe may be true. Of course I've never been to Australia, but...
Alexzandvar wrote: I enjoy the revving up of the rhetoric that I'm sort of soft leftie looking to sign away your right, despite that immediately making you all look like you belong in some sort of Town Hall yelling at a congressman because you read something on Fox news
And I have yet to see evidence of the NRA working with reasonable people, bar of course there attempt shortly after the Colombine shootings.
But on to the nit and gritty: The government is not signing away your rights, indeed, I was bashed in the other thread for suggesting the modern clinging to the second amendment silly because in it's most literal terms allows naught but a well operated militia and if we took the constitution's and the bills of rights literally we would have very few of the freedoms we cling to much to today such as yknow PRIVACY.
But were Civilized now, we had planes, electricity, a working justice system, we infer things, we don't take the bible literally anymore (except for some loonies of course). We have the ability to look back and judge how to interpret a 200+ year old document and apply it today with out looking like an idiots or at least I hope we can.
But alas I think the next 10+ pages of this thread will be circle jerking over how evil the government is and how Obama and the democrat "The Lefties" are literally the cancer that is destroying America
Regardless of the outcome, I hope you all do realize how embarrassing you all look when you shout and scream about how evil the government and how you all are a bastion of morality, justice and the American way and then go to post in another thread about how we should be okay with torturing terrorists or how awful gay rights advocates are with zero self awareness of your hipocracy
I've reported you for continual insults and foul language. Either have a conversation like an adult or step out of the forum for a bit and cool down.
I was not insulting any specific person, I merely called for there so be some more self awareness.
Seaward called me a child, Frazz said I'm a leftie.
How is my appeal to reason amongst the average individual any more inappropriate than that? I don't intend to upset anyone, unless obviously they are to easily angered than its impossible to avoid.
djones520 wrote: Damn SAFE Act. Single handedly sank my ambitions to get stationed at Ft. Drum. I had to leave firearms behind when I moved to Japan. I am not leaving firearms behind because I am moving within my own damn country. It's a shame, I had a lot of extended family in that region.
I understand the desire to go because of family, but trust me when I say you DONT want to go to Fort Drum. Its considered gakky by Army standards, how do you think it'll be by AF standards?
Alexzandvar wrote: I enjoy the revving up of the rhetoric that I'm sort of soft leftie looking to sign away your right, despite that immediately making you all look like you belong in some sort of Town Hall yelling at a congressman because you read something on Fox news
And I have yet to see evidence of the NRA working with reasonable people, bar of course there attempt shortly after the Colombine shootings.
But on to the nit and gritty: The government is not signing away your rights, indeed, I was bashed in the other thread for suggesting the modern clinging to the second amendment silly because in it's most literal terms allows naught but a well operated militia and if we took the constitution's and the bills of rights literally we would have very few of the freedoms we cling to much to today such as yknow PRIVACY.
But were Civilized now, we had planes, electricity, a working justice system, we infer things, we don't take the bible literally anymore (except for some loonies of course). We have the ability to look back and judge how to interpret a 200+ year old document and apply it today with out looking like an idiots or at least I hope we can.
But alas I think the next 10+ pages of this thread will be circle jerking over how evil the government is and how Obama and the democrat "The Lefties" are literally the cancer that is destroying America
Regardless of the outcome, I hope you all do realize how embarrassing you all look when you shout and scream about how evil the government and how you all are a bastion of morality, justice and the American way and then go to post in another thread about how we should be okay with torturing terrorists or how awful gay rights advocates are with zero self awareness of your hipocracy
Ah, to be 16 again.
This is the guy that said in another thread how military he was and how real soldiers didn't give a gak about other soldiers dying because that's just what happens, like the wind blowing or the sun shining. I wouldn't worry much about him.
Also I love how people say that we can't pass gun legislation against self loading weapons because the government would have to get confiscate them, and that's not possible despite the fact, that it totally is, since mass recalls on products are regularly carried out by corporations with a lot less manpower the the government.
You're drawing a parallel between product recalls and door to door weapon confiscation?
Brilliant. Absolutely fething brilliant. Please carry on. This is good.
Guns are a product made by private companies, so yes it is a product.
I think your not familiar with how a lot of recalls work, they would just offer a deadline and incentive to turn in your now illegal self loading weapon and if you didn't you would be in possession of an illegal fire arm.
Say this, go turn in your weapon to the local police department or other collection center and you receive a tax break or a payment equal to the cost of the weapon, thus noone would lose any money by "giving up" the product as it were.
And again, please refrain from the "haha look at the fool try to be reasonable or suggest anything" since it does not add to the discussion at all, pointless ridicule and unwillingness to give the people the time of day and ability to say their piece is an issue on both sides. This comes back to my central argument, the fact that some people are being ignorant about guns does not give you free reign to then debase yourself and appear just as ignorant by refusing any sort of compromise to a big issue.
djones520 wrote: Damn SAFE Act. Single handedly sank my ambitions to get stationed at Ft. Drum. I had to leave firearms behind when I moved to Japan. I am not leaving firearms behind because I am moving within my own damn country. It's a shame, I had a lot of extended family in that region.
You should see upstate NY. It's hard to drive down a road without seeing twelve "repeal" signs in every other yard (they almost cover the broken cars ).
Guns are a product made by private companies, so yes it is a product.
I think your not familiar with how a lot of recalls work, they would just offer a deadline and incentive to turn in your now illegal self loading weapon and if you didn't you would be in possession of an illegal fire arm.
Say this, go turn in your weapon to the local police department or other collection center and you receive a tax break or a payment equal to the cost of the weapon, thus noone would lose any money by "giving up" the product as it were.
Because everyone is going to turn their weapons in?
And again, please refrain from the "haha look at the fool try to be reasonable or suggest anything" since it does not add to the discussion at all, pointless ridicule and unwillingness to give the people the time of day and ability to say their piece is an issue on both sides. This comes back to my central argument, the fact that some people are being ignorant about guns does not give you free reign to then debase yourself and appear just as ignorant by refusing any sort of compromise to a big issue.
Are guns really a problem? 12,000 people die each year in gun related homicide 80% of those deaths are Gang related. So about 2,400 "normal" people die each year from gun homicide. How about spending all this money on Anit-gun lobbying bs and spending it on education in inner cities to try and help bring down that 9,600 gang related gun homicides.
Guns are a product made by private companies, so yes it is a product.
I think your not familiar with how a lot of recalls work, they would just offer a deadline and incentive to turn in your now illegal self loading weapon and if you didn't you would be in possession of an illegal fire arm.
Say this, go turn in your weapon to the local police department or other collection center and you receive a tax break or a payment equal to the cost of the weapon, thus noone would lose any money by "giving up" the product as it were.
Because everyone is going to turn their weapons in?
And again, please refrain from the "haha look at the fool try to be reasonable or suggest anything" since it does not add to the discussion at all, pointless ridicule and unwillingness to give the people the time of day and ability to say their piece is an issue on both sides. This comes back to my central argument, the fact that some people are being ignorant about guns does not give you free reign to then debase yourself and appear just as ignorant by refusing any sort of compromise to a big issue.
Are guns really a problem? 12,000 people die each year in gun related homicide 80% of those deaths are Gang related. So about 2,400 "normal" people die each year from gun homicide. How about spending all this money on Anit-gun lobbying bs and spending it on education in inner cities to try and help bring down that 9,600 gang related gun homicides.
Also I love how people say that we can't pass gun legislation against self loading weapons because the government would have to get confiscate them, and that's not possible despite the fact, that it totally is, since mass recalls on products are regularly carried out by corporations with a lot less manpower the the government.
How many people do you really think would give them up willingly?
Ninjacommando wrote: Are guns really a problem? 12,000 people die each year in gun related homicide 80% of those deaths are Gang related. So about 2,400 "normal" people die each year from gun homicide. How about spending all this money on Anit-gun lobbying bs and spending it on education in inner cities to try and help bring down that 9,600 gang related gun homicides.
It'll never happen. Nobody who claims to be interested in solving the firearm homicide problem is actually interested in solving the firearm homicide problem. It's a political issue they can score points on. Why make that go away? It's useful to them. They get to stand in front of a podium and blather on about assault rifles and clips and armor-piercing hollowpoints.
That's now, of course. After the AWB finally got the send-off it deserved in 2004, they stayed quiet on it up until Sandy Hook. They knew it was a losing issue. Now, though, there are enough ignorant people who buy into the outright bs about how the AR-15 and its "hyper-velocity" .223 is the most dangerous combination in the world to feed them votes when they get up there and spout nonsense for twenty minutes.
Alexzandvar wrote: I enjoy the revving up of the rhetoric that I'm sort of soft leftie looking to sign away your right, despite that immediately making you all look like you belong in some sort of Town Hall yelling at a congressman because you read something on Fox news
And I have yet to see evidence of the NRA working with reasonable people, bar of course there attempt shortly after the Colombine shootings.
But on to the nit and gritty: The government is not signing away your rights, indeed, I was bashed in the other thread for suggesting the modern clinging to the second amendment silly because in it's most literal terms allows naught but a well operated militia and if we took the constitution's and the bills of rights literally we would have very few of the freedoms we cling to much to today such as yknow PRIVACY.
But were Civilized now, we had planes, electricity, a working justice system, we infer things, we don't take the bible literally anymore (except for some loonies of course). We have the ability to look back and judge how to interpret a 200+ year old document and apply it today with out looking like an idiots or at least I hope we can.
But alas I think the next 10+ pages of this thread will be circle jerking over how evil the government is and how Obama and the democrat "The Lefties" are literally the cancer that is destroying America
Regardless of the outcome, I hope you all do realize how embarrassing you all look when you shout and scream about how evil the government and how you all are a bastion of morality, justice and the American way and then go to post in another thread about how we should be okay with torturing terrorists or how awful gay rights advocates are with zero self awareness of your hipocracy
Ah, to be 16 again.
This is the guy that said in another thread how military he was and how he didn't give a gak about soldiers dying because that's just what happens, like the wind blowing or the sun shining. I wouldn't worry much about him.
For one I am not 16, I am 18 in college and a ROTC cadet so save your insults for one of the roleplaying story thread. but I am insulted that you would twist my statement on how, coming from a military family were the ultimate sacrifice is a regular occurrence and thus I feel that it has become part of my life that I regard as something that doesn't end, and that one day I shall potentially make that sacrifice
Paint me as a lefty liberal who wants to destroy this country, what ever, but do not dare say that I don't give a about soldiers dying.
2 cousins in Afghanistan, the year before they died I shared thanksgiving with them, spoke with then, drank with them, enjoyed a family get togeather with them, they had futures cut short in the cruelty that is war. I still regard their sacrifice with solemness to this day.
I have 4 relatives burried in the Gettysburg cemetery, 3 from the Confederacy and 1 from the Union. My father spent 29 years in the airforce and went through hell in vietnam, his father was a pilot in the pacific theater. The very person I am named after died in the revolutionary war helping fight to make this country possible.
and you dare to suggest that I do not honor these men? That I don't hang a portrait of my namesake in my room, that I don't visit Arlington cemetery every year with my father, that I am not currently taking ROTC to continue the family tradition of service to this Country.
So put me on ignore, hate me all you want do don't twist my words on my family.
EDIT: I mean the person I'm named after In real life, of course
Also I love how people say that we can't pass gun legislation against self loading weapons because the government would have to get confiscate them, and that's not possible despite the fact, that it totally is, since mass recalls on products are regularly carried out by corporations with a lot less manpower the the government.
How many people do you really think would give them up willingly?
Hope he leads the pack that will try to confiscate 'em.
Seaward called me a child, Frazz said I'm a leftie.
How is my appeal to reason amongst the average individual any more inappropriate than that? I don't intend to upset anyone, unless obviously they are to easily angered than its impossible to avoid.
You're not a lefty? Is that an insult to you? It would be insulting to a Republican, but not a Democrat.
Are now or have you ever been a member of the Democratic Party?
Alexzandvar wrote: I enjoy the revving up of the rhetoric that I'm sort of soft leftie looking to sign away your right, despite that immediately making you all look like you belong in some sort of Town Hall yelling at a congressman because you read something on Fox news
And I have yet to see evidence of the NRA working with reasonable people, bar of course there attempt shortly after the Colombine shootings.
But on to the nit and gritty: The government is not signing away your rights, indeed, I was bashed in the other thread for suggesting the modern clinging to the second amendment silly because in it's most literal terms allows naught but a well operated militia and if we took the constitution's and the bills of rights literally we would have very few of the freedoms we cling to much to today such as yknow PRIVACY.
But were Civilized now, we had planes, electricity, a working justice system, we infer things, we don't take the bible literally anymore (except for some loonies of course). We have the ability to look back and judge how to interpret a 200+ year old document and apply it today with out looking like an idiots or at least I hope we can.
But alas I think the next 10+ pages of this thread will be circle jerking over how evil the government is and how Obama and the democrat "The Lefties" are literally the cancer that is destroying America
Regardless of the outcome, I hope you all do realize how embarrassing you all look when you shout and scream about how evil the government and how you all are a bastion of morality, justice and the American way and then go to post in another thread about how we should be okay with torturing terrorists or how awful gay rights advocates are with zero self awareness of your hipocracy
Ah, to be 16 again.
This is the guy that said in another thread how military he was and how he didn't give a gak about soldiers dying because that's just what happens, like the wind blowing or the sun shining. I wouldn't worry much about him.
For one I am not 16, I am 18 in college and a ROTC cadet so save your insults for one of the roleplaying story thread. but I am insulted that you would twist my statement on how, coming from a military family were the ultimate sacrifice is a regular occurrence and thus I feel that it has become part of my life that I regard as something that doesn't end, and that one day I shall potentially make that sacrifice
Paint me as a lefty liberal who wants to destroy this country, what ever, but do not dare say that I don't give a about soldiers dying.
2 cousins in Afghanistan, the year before they died I shared thanksgiving with them, spoke with then, drank with them, enjoyed a family get togeather with them, they had futures cut short in the cruelty that is war. I still regard their sacrifice with solemness to this day.
I have 4 relatives burried in the Gettysburg cemetery, 3 from the Confederacy and 1 from the Union. My father spent 29 years in the airforce and went through hell in vietnam, his father was a pilot in the pacific theater. The very person I am named after died in the revolution war helping fight to make this country possible.
and you dare to suggest that I do not honor these men? That I don't hang a portrait of my namesake in my room, that I don't visit Arlington cemetery every year with my father, that I am not currently taking ROTC to continue the family tradition of service to this Country.
So put me on ignore, hate me all you want do don't twist my words on my family.
Your doin' fine hanging yourself with your own words....
Alexzandvar wrote: I enjoy the revving up of the rhetoric that I'm sort of soft leftie looking to sign away your right, despite that immediately making you all look like you belong in some sort of Town Hall yelling at a congressman because you read something on Fox news
And I have yet to see evidence of the NRA working with reasonable people, bar of course there attempt shortly after the Colombine shootings.
But on to the nit and gritty: The government is not signing away your rights, indeed, I was bashed in the other thread for suggesting the modern clinging to the second amendment silly because in it's most literal terms allows naught but a well operated militia and if we took the constitution's and the bills of rights literally we would have very few of the freedoms we cling to much to today such as yknow PRIVACY.
But were Civilized now, we had planes, electricity, a working justice system, we infer things, we don't take the bible literally anymore (except for some loonies of course). We have the ability to look back and judge how to interpret a 200+ year old document and apply it today with out looking like an idiots or at least I hope we can.
But alas I think the next 10+ pages of this thread will be circle jerking over how evil the government is and how Obama and the democrat "The Lefties" are literally the cancer that is destroying America
Regardless of the outcome, I hope you all do realize how embarrassing you all look when you shout and scream about how evil the government and how you all are a bastion of morality, justice and the American way and then go to post in another thread about how we should be okay with torturing terrorists or how awful gay rights advocates are with zero self awareness of your hipocracy
Ah, to be 16 again.
This is the guy that said in another thread how military he was and how he didn't give a gak about soldiers dying because that's just what happens, like the wind blowing or the sun shining. I wouldn't worry much about him.
For one I am not 16, I am 18 in college and a ROTC cadet so save your insults for one of the roleplaying story thread. but I am insulted that you would twist my statement on how, coming from a military family were the ultimate sacrifice is a regular occurrence and thus I feel that it has become part of my life that I regard as something that doesn't end, and that one day I shall potentially make that sacrifice
Paint me as a lefty liberal who wants to destroy this country, what ever, but do not dare say that I don't give a about soldiers dying.
2 cousins in Afghanistan, the year before they died I shared thanksgiving with them, spoke with then, drank with them, enjoyed a family get togeather with them, they had futures cut short in the cruelty that is war. I still regard their sacrifice with solemness to this day.
I have 4 relatives burried in the Gettysburg cemetery, 3 from the Confederacy and 1 from the Union. My father spent 29 years in the airforce and went through hell in vietnam, his father was a pilot in the pacific theater. The very person I am named after died in the revolution war helping fight to make this country possible.
and you dare to suggest that I do not honor these men? That I don't hang a portrait of my namesake in my room, that I don't visit Arlington cemetery every year with my father, that I am not currently taking ROTC to continue the family tradition of service to this Country.
So put me on ignore, hate me all you want do don't twist my words on my family.
Direct quotes from you off the "Never forget Benghazi" thread, page 7:
This about those who died in Benghazi:
"I lost my sympathy for Benghazi's "victims" when my Civil War battery did a a memorial for the seals that died there and the wife of the commander called me the "cancer that was killing America" in front of a crowd.
I know how to play a trumpet pretty well, so at the event I played taps, and was invited to attend the after party for the memorial, I then was able to speak to attendee's which was cool (cause navy seal vets were attending), but then after I mentioned video games while speaking with father this lady refereed to me as noted earlier "The cancer thats killing America", she also went on to give a speech above how evil video games and big government is.
Me and my father promptly left. So yeah, if the widows of this "tragedy" want to use there husbands deaths to push political points then they can feth off.
So if your pissed at Obama or Hillary for the handling of these deaths, be even more pissed the so called victims familys are using there loved ones deaths to push political issues all the same."
And this about SEALs dying:
"Coming from a military family Iv been more groomed to just see soldiers dying just as a "thing that happens" when it comes to war zones, so I don't really feel that angry about navy seals dying in the line of duty, since, well, that's the job description.
tragedy comes into play when you say, have a vet who comes home to no work or doesn't get the proper mental healthcare. but again, soldiers dying in the field, nothing new under the sun. "
You're not a lefty? Is that an insult to you? It would be insulting to a Republican, but not a Democrat.
Are now or have you ever been a member of the Democratic Party?
I realize you're making a joke there, but it's an insult to a person to be pidgeonholed into a category of stereotypes so dismissively. There are many people who would consider being accused of being either an insult, and have political views that include portions of both sides talking points, along with ideas both sides would find repugnant.
Guns are a product made by private companies, so yes it is a product.
Your ignorance of the law is almost terrifying. There is no product difficulty here. You’re arguing for confiscation under criminal laws. This requires a search warrant and something called probable cause.
That’s Unconstitutional on its face.
Institute that nationwide, ignore the courts, and you just started the second US Civil War.
I think your not familiar with how a lot of recalls work, they would just offer a deadline and incentive to turn in your now illegal self loading weapon and if you didn't you would be in possession of an illegal fire arm.
I think you’re not familiar with how recalls work and what they are for. Again, your ignorance of what you are advocating is breathtaking.
Further recalls don’t permit the federales to kick in your door. There is no criminal law requiring you to bring your car in when there’s a defect. Further, with a recall you don’t give your property to the government.
Say this, go turn in your weapon to the local police department or other collection center and you receive a tax break or a payment equal to the cost of the weapon, thus noone would lose any money by "giving up" the product as it were.
Cities have done that in the past. It does nothing.
And again, please refrain from the "haha look at the fool try to be reasonable or suggest anything"
Your ignorance of what you are proposing did that already.
That point of what I was saying was that I the reason I am not all upset and up in arms about the former SEAL's death is because within my family the sacrifice of death in battle is something that is regarded with respect but is not something to be ultra angry or ultra sad over. It is depressing sure, but if we let everything depressing or angering in our lives get to us we would be naught but emotional wrecks all the time.
Call it grim if you want, I call it recognition that my ancestors died for something worth fighting for and that by debasing ourselves and causing more hatred and anger and death over theirs serves not their memory but to poison it and corrupt it.
And Martian man, if you honestly think me talking about how I respect and honor my ancestors and their sacrifice is "hanging myself with my own words" then let me hang. I don't really mind all your scorn, but don't talk as If I do not regard what my family has sacrificed for this country with pride.
The whole world thinks America has a crazy attitude to guns. I lived in the states for a year working on a farm when I was 19 and couldn't believe how flippantly they treated some of the worlds most dangerous tools.
I met some of the nicest warmest people in america but I and most of the world are saddened by the gun attitude. I think it stems from not having a real war or conflict on your home soil for so long. Lax gun laws are bad news full stop.
Knockagh wrote: The whole world thinks America has a crazy attitude to guns. I lived in the states for a year working on a farm when I was 19 and couldn't believe how flippantly they treated some of the worlds most dangerous tools.
Examples, por favor.
I met some of the nicest warmest people in america but I and most of the world are saddened by the gun attitude. I think it stems from not having a real war or conflict on your home soil for so long. Lax gun laws are bad news full stop.
I think it stems from the initial war on our home soil.
Knockagh wrote: The whole world thinks America has a crazy attitude to guns. I lived in the states for a year working on a farm when I was 19 and couldn't believe how flippantly they treated some of the worlds most dangerous tools.
I met some of the nicest warmest people in america but I and most of the world are saddened by the gun attitude. I think it stems from not having a real war or conflict on your home soil for so long. Lax gun laws are bad news full stop.
Well, sounds like the worlds problem to me. Maybe they should grow tolerant of other's cultures.
Alexzandvar wrote: That point of what I was saying was that I the reason I am not all upset and up in arms about the former SEAL's death is because within my family the sacrifice of death in battle is something that is regarded with respect but is not something to be ultra angry or ultra sad over. It is depressing sure, but if we let everything depressing or angering in our lives get to us we would be naught but emotional wrecks all the time.
Call it grim if you want, I call it recognition that my ancestors died for something worth fighting for and that by debasing ourselves and causing more hatred and anger and death over theirs serves not their memory but to poison it and corrupt it.
And Martian man, if you honestly think me talking about how I respect and honor my ancestors and their sacrifice is "hanging myself with my own words" then let me hang. I don't really mind all your scorn, but don't talk as If I do not regard what my family has sacrificed for this country with pride.
In one post you get upset over an obviously distressed woman's comments about you talking about video games, and write a blistering rave telling us we should be pissed at her and have no sympathy for the Benghazi widows.
In the next you make it seem as though you look at soldiers dying as another day at the office.
I think my confusion with your thought process is understandable.
Examples?? I lived near a farmer who owned 2 ak47's. The weapon I grew up with being used to murder innocent people in the streets and bars of my city.
He had an armalite, a weapon that was used to injure a good friend of my fathers who happened to go shopping on the wrong day.
Many of the weapons that fond their way illegally into my country were bought without restriction in the states and shipped here by people who used the lax gun laws to murder innocent civilians. Tragic?
Perhaps may I suggest that the point I was trying to make was not that "War widows deserve no sympathy" but that it is wrong and immoral to use someones death regardless of how close they were to you to purse a political agenda or to cause more anger and distress. That In seeing the people who lost their husband to the tragedy that was Bengazhi push the idea that because their husband's died the fact that I, by playing Video games was destroying this Country was not only offensive to me because she was insulting me but because she was using the death of an Ambassador Stevens, the two Navy seals, and Sean Smith as a platform from which to insult others.
I know its odd to say, but perhaps the fact that I was offended that she would turn peoples deaths into political talking points proves that I regard military sacrifice with respect rather than what you suggest that I "Don't give a gak about soldiers"
Knockagh wrote: Examples?? I lived near a farmer who owned 2 ak47's. The weapon I grew up with being used to murder innocent people in the streets and bars of my city.
He had an armalite, a weapon that was used to injure a good friend of my fathers who happened to go shopping on the wrong day.
Many of the weapons that fond their way illegally into my country were bought without restriction in the states and shipped here by people who used the lax gun laws to murder innocent civilians. Tragic?
I think you may have misunderstood. I asked for examples of them being treated flippantly, not for examples of ownership.
Unless your contention is that the mere act of ownership is treating them flippantly.
Incidentally, the shipping you're describing? Absolutely illegal. That's not down to lax gun laws, that's down to lax enforcement of laws on the books.
The lax laws allowed a gun go be bought that couldn't be traced using the serial number, it allowed politically motivated terrorists in the states to purchase weapons without the states knowledge and then move them illegally. The law aided the terrorist.
Yes ownership of assault weapons is flippant act.
Knockagh wrote: Examples?? I lived near a farmer who owned 2 ak47's. The weapon I grew up with being used to murder innocent people in the streets and bars of my city. He had an armalite, a weapon that was used to injure a good friend of my fathers who happened to go shopping on the wrong day. Many of the weapons that fond their way illegally into my country were bought without restriction in the states and shipped here by people who used the lax gun laws to murder innocent civilians. Tragic?
The odds of those AKs coming from Libya are a LOT better than them coming from the US (assuming you are referring to their use by the IRA/PIRA.)
And your examples don't really show carless use of dangerous tools, they just show ownership.
Knockagh wrote: The lax laws allowed a gun go be bought that couldn't be traced using the serial number, it allowed politically motivated terrorists in the states to purchase weapons without the states knowledge and then move them illegally. The law aided the terrorist.
How do you know they were purchased in the States if they couldn't be traced?
Yes ownership of assault weapons is flippant act.
This is an assault weapon. This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.
Alexzandvar wrote: That point of what I was saying was that I the reason I am not all upset and up in arms about the former SEAL's death is because within my family the sacrifice of death in battle is something that is regarded with respect but is not something to be ultra angry or ultra sad over. It is depressing sure, but if we let everything depressing or angering in our lives get to us we would be naught but emotional wrecks all the time.
Call it grim if you want, I call it recognition that my ancestors died for something worth fighting for and that by debasing ourselves and causing more hatred and anger and death over theirs serves not their memory but to poison it and corrupt it.
And Martian man, if you honestly think me talking about how I respect and honor my ancestors and their sacrifice is "hanging myself with my own words" then let me hang. I don't really mind all your scorn, but don't talk as If I do not regard what my family has sacrificed for this country with pride.
Hey Allie:
Not all of us have forgotten our oaths.
Wish you understood yours (or not yet maybe, have you contracted yet ? God I hope not).
Alexzandvar wrote: Perhaps may I suggest that the point I was trying to make was not that "War widows deserve no sympathy" but that it is wrong and immoral to use someones death regardless of how close they were to you to purse a political agenda or to cause more anger and distress. That In seeing the people who lost their husband to the tragedy that was Bengazhi push the idea that because their husband's died the fact that I, by playing Video games was destroying this Country was not only offensive to me because she was insulting me but because she was using the death of an Ambassador Stevens, the two Navy seals, and Sean Smith as a platform from which to insult others.
I know its odd to say, but perhaps the fact that I was offended that she would turn peoples deaths into political talking points proves that I regard military sacrifice with respect rather than what you suggest that I "Don't give a gak about soldiers"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you got pissed at a woman who just lost her husband in a horrific way because someone's wife got offended at the fact you were talking about a video game you were playing at his memorial? It seems to me there is far more to the story than is being told here, and I wish I had the chance to hear what her side of the incident was.
I think my confusion with your thought process is understandable.
Well, give it time. If he actually makes it through BOLC B (or, heaven help us, to the fleet, if he's NROTC), his politics will have done a 180.
Unless he becomes one of those weird intel guys, I guess.
I'm in Army ROTC actually, and I went to basic the summer after I graduated in high school as part of the program I'm in.
I find it interesting you seem to think that the military breeds only conservatives when both Hillary and Obama had an group that worked with them that was comprised of general and admirals that helped democratic candidates.
So already your assertion the military would turn me "conservative" as it were is debunked, not to mention your assertion that intel guys are weird seems funny because my father worked air force intelligence in Vietnam (He was however stationed in the Philippines since the air force didn't station units who preformed covert ops in Vietnam itself.) He flew missions into Cambodia and the North and he is in fact: a democrat.
Real talk here Seaward, you would be much easier to get along with if you didn't generalize people so much, not every democrat is a hippie who loves Apple and can't wait to steal your money.
Hell, I like old establishment Republicans like Eisenhower and Nixon.
Knockagh wrote: The lax laws allowed a gun go be bought that couldn't be traced using the serial number, it allowed politically motivated terrorists in the states to purchase weapons without the states knowledge and then move them illegally. The law aided the terrorist.
How do you know they were purchased in the States if they couldn't be traced?
Yes ownership of assault weapons is flippant act.
This is an assault weapon. This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.
American people were tried and convicted of aiding Irish terrorists many times and of the specific crimes of arms smuggling, but many terrorist shipments got through the graveyards of my country are testament to it.
I shoot myself I have a 12 gauge shotgun I need on the farm and an .22 air rifle I use for target shooting. All ammunition I must purchase and be recorded on my licence. My guns are inspected regularly in my home by police officers as are all licensed gun holders weapons. My shotgun is a tool I need to do my job it's not a toy or a source of amusement, it is what it is a weapon designed to end life.
Alexzandvar wrote: Perhaps may I suggest that the point I was trying to make was not that "War widows deserve no sympathy" but that it is wrong and immoral to use someones death regardless of how close they were to you to purse a political agenda or to cause more anger and distress. That In seeing the people who lost their husband to the tragedy that was Bengazhi push the idea that because their husband's died the fact that I, by playing Video games was destroying this Country was not only offensive to me because she was insulting me but because she was using the death of an Ambassador Stevens, the two Navy seals, and Sean Smith as a platform from which to insult others.
I know its odd to say, but perhaps the fact that I was offended that she would turn peoples deaths into political talking points proves that I regard military sacrifice with respect rather than what you suggest that I "Don't give a gak about soldiers"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you got pissed at a woman who just lost her husband in a horrific way because someone's wife got offended at the fact you were talking about a video game you were playing at his memorial? It seems to me there is far more to the story than is being told here, and I wish I had the chance to hear what her side of the incident was.
I said that, on the other side of the room, after the memorial while everyone was eating and speaking I quietly mentioned to my father what I would do when I get come. I wasn't loudly announcing my intentions I wasn't attempting to inform anyone other than the person standing right next to me of what I was going to do when I got home.
During the actual memorial outside I was standing silently about 20 feet away from the seating, and would have been incapable of discussing anything with anyone as I was standing by myself with my trumpet.
She also stood up and made her announcement about her dislike of video games and how she hated facebook, and other things ect. The point of all my original posts you seemed to have missed was that I don't think it is right to use soldiers death for political gain regardless of political allegiance.
Alexzandvar wrote: Perhaps may I suggest that the point I was trying to make was not that "War widows deserve no sympathy" but that it is wrong and immoral to use someones death regardless of how close they were to you to purse a political agenda or to cause more anger and distress. That In seeing the people who lost their husband to the tragedy that was Bengazhi push the idea that because their husband's died the fact that I, by playing Video games was destroying this Country was not only offensive to me because she was insulting me but because she was using the death of an Ambassador Stevens, the two Navy seals, and Sean Smith as a platform from which to insult others.
I know its odd to say, but perhaps the fact that I was offended that she would turn peoples deaths into political talking points proves that I regard military sacrifice with respect rather than what you suggest that I "Don't give a gak about soldiers"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you got pissed at a woman who just lost her husband in a horrific way because someone's wife got offended at the fact you were talking about a video game you were playing at his memorial? It seems to me there is far more to the story than is being told here, and I wish I had the chance to hear what her side of the incident was.
I said that, on the other side of the room, after the memorial while everyone was eating and speaking I quietly mentioned to my father what I would do when I get come. I wasn't loudly announcing my intentions I wasn't attempting to inform anyone other than the person standing right next to me of what I was going to do when I got home.
During the actual memorial outside I was standing silently about 20 feet away from the seating, and would have been incapable of discussing anything with anyone as I was standing by myself with my trumpet.
She also stood up and made her announcement about her dislike of video games and how she hated facebook, and other things ect. The point of all my original posts you seemed to have missed was that I don't think it is right to use soldiers death for political gain regardless of political allegiance.
How did she then hear you, if you were talking quietly on the other side of the room?
Alexzandvar wrote: That point of what I was saying was that I the reason I am not all upset and up in arms about the former SEAL's death is because within my family the sacrifice of death in battle is something that is regarded with respect but is not something to be ultra angry or ultra sad over. It is depressing sure, but if we let everything depressing or angering in our lives get to us we would be naught but emotional wrecks all the time.
Call it grim if you want, I call it recognition that my ancestors died for something worth fighting for and that by debasing ourselves and causing more hatred and anger and death over theirs serves not their memory but to poison it and corrupt it.
And Martian man, if you honestly think me talking about how I respect and honor my ancestors and their sacrifice is "hanging myself with my own words" then let me hang. I don't really mind all your scorn, but don't talk as If I do not regard what my family has sacrificed for this country with pride.
Hey Allie:
Not all of us have forgotten our oaths.
Wish you understood yours (or not yet maybe, have you contracted yet ? God I hope not).
Yes I have contracted, 4 year ROTC scholarship .
And what oaths do you speak of? I'm interested to know how in discussing the restriction/allowance of fire arms I am breaking an oath.
To be fair I don't really think the best way to get your point across is insults and implications I am unfit for military service, one of the big reason the Republican Party is losing ground is that insults and bad implications are not a good way to sell a point/political platform/idea
Alexzandvar wrote: Perhaps may I suggest that the point I was trying to make was not that "War widows deserve no sympathy" but that it is wrong and immoral to use someones death regardless of how close they were to you to purse a political agenda or to cause more anger and distress. That In seeing the people who lost their husband to the tragedy that was Bengazhi push the idea that because their husband's died the fact that I, by playing Video games was destroying this Country was not only offensive to me because she was insulting me but because she was using the death of an Ambassador Stevens, the two Navy seals, and Sean Smith as a platform from which to insult others.
I know its odd to say, but perhaps the fact that I was offended that she would turn peoples deaths into political talking points proves that I regard military sacrifice with respect rather than what you suggest that I "Don't give a gak about soldiers"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you got pissed at a woman who just lost her husband in a horrific way because someone's wife got offended at the fact you were talking about a video game you were playing at his memorial? It seems to me there is far more to the story than is being told here, and I wish I had the chance to hear what her side of the incident was.
I said that, on the other side of the room, after the memorial while everyone was eating and speaking I quietly mentioned to my father what I would do when I get come. I wasn't loudly announcing my intentions I wasn't attempting to inform anyone other than the person standing right next to me of what I was going to do when I got home.
During the actual memorial outside I was standing silently about 20 feet away from the seating, and would have been incapable of discussing anything with anyone as I was standing by myself with my trumpet.
She also stood up and made her announcement about her dislike of video games and how she hated facebook, and other things ect. The point of all my original posts you seemed to have missed was that I don't think it is right to use soldiers death for political gain regardless of political allegiance.
How did she then hear you, if you were talking quietly on the other side of the room?
I never said she heard me, although I do not discount that did because sometimes I talk louder than I think I do and the room wasn't all that big, but that she went on I tirade about video games and social media in general.
I probably took what she was saying to everyone more personally then I should have, but her way of using her dead husband as a political platform still upset me.
I recommend a trip over over to the Something Awful forums, Sean Smith was an avid poster over there and the way his death has been twisted makes them very upset about it.
Alexzandvar wrote: That point of what I was saying was that I the reason I am not all upset and up in arms about the former SEAL's death is because within my family the sacrifice of death in battle is something that is regarded with respect but is not something to be ultra angry or ultra sad over. It is depressing sure, but if we let everything depressing or angering in our lives get to us we would be naught but emotional wrecks all the time.
Call it grim if you want, I call it recognition that my ancestors died for something worth fighting for and that by debasing ourselves and causing more hatred and anger and death over theirs serves not their memory but to poison it and corrupt it.
And Martian man, if you honestly think me talking about how I respect and honor my ancestors and their sacrifice is "hanging myself with my own words" then let me hang. I don't really mind all your scorn, but don't talk as If I do not regard what my family has sacrificed for this country with pride.
Hey Allie:
Not all of us have forgotten our oaths.
Wish you understood yours (or not yet maybe, have you contracted yet ? God I hope not).
Yes I have contracted, 4 year ROTC scholarship .
And what oaths do you speak of? I'm interested to know how in discussing the restriction/allowance of fire arms I am breaking an oath.
To be fair I don't really think the best way to get your point across is insults and implications I am unfit for military service, one of the big reason the Republican Party is losing ground is that insults and bad implications are not a good way to sell a point/political platform/idea
I shoot myself I have a 12 gauge shotgun I need on the farm and an .22 air rifle I use for target shooting. All ammunition I must purchase and be recorded on my licence. My guns are inspected regularly in my home by police officers as are all licensed gun holders weapons. My shotgun is a tool I need to do my job it's not a toy or a source of amusement, it is what it is a weapon designed to end life.
So, your job is to End Life. I guess it is good work if you can get it.
I'm amazed that a life taker such as yourself is happy with police regularly coming into your home to inspect your private property. Really is a difference in cultures.
Now in the off chance your job is not to actually End Life, and instead it is to protect property/livestock, then your tool allows you to do so. So now we are looking at the tool as a means to protect life and property, which is the way many of us view the tool. The action of taking a life in the accomplishment of that protection really does not take away the fact that the goal is indeed protection.
. My shotgun is a tool I need to do my job it's not a toy or a source of amusement, it is what it is a weapon designed to end life.
Thats because you're not doing it right.
I'll be honest. I can't understand the rest of what you typed. Your accent is coming through.
Agreed. Spent several hours on Sunday firing an AR-10, 12g Shotgun, and a .40 Smith and Wesson.
It was all for fun.
Lucky!
I spent several hours working on ARs last night . Hoping to hit the outdoor range as soon as the snow melts down far enough to staple targets to the mat. Right now building and reloading.
Alexzandvar wrote: Perhaps may I suggest that the point I was trying to make was not that "War widows deserve no sympathy" but that it is wrong and immoral to use someones death regardless of how close they were to you to purse a political agenda or to cause more anger and distress. That In seeing the people who lost their husband to the tragedy that was Bengazhi push the idea that because their husband's died the fact that I, by playing Video games was destroying this Country was not only offensive to me because she was insulting me but because she was using the death of an Ambassador Stevens, the two Navy seals, and Sean Smith as a platform from which to insult others.
I know its odd to say, but perhaps the fact that I was offended that she would turn peoples deaths into political talking points proves that I regard military sacrifice with respect rather than what you suggest that I "Don't give a gak about soldiers"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you got pissed at a woman who just lost her husband in a horrific way because someone's wife got offended at the fact you were talking about a video game you were playing at his memorial? It seems to me there is far more to the story than is being told here, and I wish I had the chance to hear what her side of the incident was.
I said that, on the other side of the room, after the memorial while everyone was eating and speaking I quietly mentioned to my father what I would do when I get come. I wasn't loudly announcing my intentions I wasn't attempting to inform anyone other than the person standing right next to me of what I was going to do when I got home.
During the actual memorial outside I was standing silently about 20 feet away from the seating, and would have been incapable of discussing anything with anyone as I was standing by myself with my trumpet.
She also stood up and made her announcement about her dislike of video games and how she hated facebook, and other things ect. The point of all my original posts you seemed to have missed was that I don't think it is right to use soldiers death for political gain regardless of political allegiance.
How did she then hear you, if you were talking quietly on the other side of the room?
I never said she heard me, although I do not discount that did because sometimes I talk louder than I think I do and the room wasn't all that big, but that she went on I tirade about video games and social media in general.
I probably took what she was saying to everyone more personally then I should have, but her way of using her dead husband as a political platform still upset me.
I recommend a trip over over to the Something Awful forums, Sean Smith was an avid poster over there and the way his death has been twisted makes them very upset about it.
You say that she pointed you out right after you talked about it, so I assumed you meant she heard you. To tell the truth, I think her husband being killed upset her quite a bit more than you did. But I think we are taking this too far off topic, so I bow out of this thread.
American people were tried and convicted of aiding Irish terrorists many times and of the specific crimes of arms smuggling, but many terrorist shipments got through the graveyards of my country are testament to it.
I shoot myself I have a 12 gauge shotgun I need on the farm and an .22 air rifle I use for target shooting. All ammunition I must purchase and be recorded on my licence. My guns are inspected regularly in my home by police officers as are all licensed gun holders weapons. My shotgun is a tool I need to do my job it's not a toy or a source of amusement, it is what it is a weapon designed to end life.
The United States Constitution guarantees me the right to bear arms (2nd Amendment), and protection against unreasonable search and seizure (4th Amendment).
I don't speak for all Americans, but I have no interest whatsoever in living as you do in England, and thankfully an ocean separates me from the willful embrace of tyranny, the knee-jerk emotional approaches to lawmaking, and people who assume that the government can protect them from everything.
ETA in regards to the other posters:
Honestly, I don't even enjoy shooting anymore. I did when I was younger, but after you do it "at work" involuntarily, it loses a lot of its appeal. That said, everyone does it for their own reasons. Either way, if you enjoy shooting or not, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the purpose of gun ownership is not related to target shooting or hunting in any way, shape, or form. It's about defense, plain and simple.
I shoot myself I have a 12 gauge shotgun I need on the farm and an .22 air rifle I use for target shooting. All ammunition I must purchase and be recorded on my licence. My guns are inspected regularly in my home by police officers as are all licensed gun holders weapons. My shotgun is a tool I need to do my job it's not a toy or a source of amusement, it is what it is a weapon designed to end life.
So, your job is to End Life. I guess it is good work if you can get it.
I'm amazed that a life taker such as yourself is happy with police regularly coming into your home to inspect your private property. Really is a difference in cultures.
Now in the off chance your job is not to actually End Life, and instead it is to protect property/livestock, then your tool allows you to do so. So now we are looking at the tool as a means to protect life and property, which is the way many of us view the tool. The action of taking a life in the accomplishment of that protection really does not take away the fact that the goal is indeed protection.
There is a maturity about the ownership of firearms in the US that regrettably some other countries lack.
I think my confusion with your thought process is understandable.
Well, give it time. If he actually makes it through BOLC B (or, heaven help us, to the fleet, if he's NROTC), his politics will have done a 180.
Unless he becomes one of those weird intel guys, I guess.
Hey now ... I was one of those 'weird intel guys' ... and I have to say, I am a little bit offen .... .... .... nah, we are a weird lot. Apt description really. One thing about it is simply this: Restrictive gun laws only make it harder for a law abiding citizen to legally obtain a gun. I am not opposed to waiting 7 days to get a gun ... I am good with that, I can see the positive to that.
The real question people need to ask is this: Who do YOU think you are to tell people what they can or can not do? Are you GOD? Are you Jesus in the flesh? Am I harming you in any way by purchasing this gun? You see the potential for me to go on a murder spree with it?
Great, then ban all modes of transportation as they kill more people than guns. Put giant corporations on trial as they kill people too. Hollywood? Burn it to the ground as they make violent movies that little Timmy wants to emulate, and it is full of hippies anyways.
These are all kneejerk reactions that are wrong. The thing to remember is this: Guns do not kill people, husbands that come home early kill people.
I am registered as a Democrat but I do not agree with every view that they have. I agree with some of the things that the Republicans say too. I trust NONE of them though.
American people were tried and convicted of aiding Irish terrorists many times and of the specific crimes of arms smuggling, but many terrorist shipments got through the graveyards of my country are testament to it.
I shoot myself I have a 12 gauge shotgun I need on the farm and an .22 air rifle I use for target shooting. All ammunition I must purchase and be recorded on my licence. My guns are inspected regularly in my home by police officers as are all licensed gun holders weapons. My shotgun is a tool I need to do my job it's not a toy or a source of amusement, it is what it is a weapon designed to end life.
The United States Constitution guarantees me the right to bear arms (2nd Amendment), and protection against unreasonable search and seizure (4th Amendment).
I don't speak for all Americans, but I have no interest whatsoever in living as you do in England, and thankfully an ocean separates me from the willful embrace of tyranny, the knee-jerk emotional approaches to lawmaking, and people who assume that the government can protect them from everything.
Ha ha brilliant. I love it when a yank gets all 'up in arms' about their constitution. It just a document folks not Holy Scripture. All documents change with the times, that's what history is all about.
I don't live in England. I live in different part of the United Kingdom. I will leave you to work it out. Enjoy your chewing tobacco.
It's much more then a document Knockagh. It's a system of belief that I've spent 12 years of my life defending, and have sworn to give my life to, if ever necessary.
It's another one of those culture things. So far, all you've managed to do is insult our culture again and again in this thread. I'm personally getting tired of it.
American people were tried and convicted of aiding Irish terrorists many times and of the specific crimes of arms smuggling, but many terrorist shipments got through the graveyards of my country are testament to it.
I shoot myself I have a 12 gauge shotgun I need on the farm and an .22 air rifle I use for target shooting. All ammunition I must purchase and be recorded on my licence. My guns are inspected regularly in my home by police officers as are all licensed gun holders weapons. My shotgun is a tool I need to do my job it's not a toy or a source of amusement, it is what it is a weapon designed to end life.
The United States Constitution guarantees me the right to bear arms (2nd Amendment), and protection against unreasonable search and seizure (4th Amendment).
I don't speak for all Americans, but I have no interest whatsoever in living as you do in England, and thankfully an ocean separates me from the willful embrace of tyranny, the knee-jerk emotional approaches to lawmaking, and people who assume that the government can protect them from everything.
Ha ha brilliant. I love it when a yank gets all 'up in arms' about their constitution. It just a document folks not Holy Scripture. All documents change with the times, that's what history is all about.
I don't live in England. I live in different part of the United Kingdom. I will leave you to work it out. Enjoy your chewing tobacco.
The document has changed in time. It guarantees us certain protections. That's why it was AMENDED.
It's fairly common practice to assume that all Americans are tobacco chewing fast food eating fat asses, but I am not one of them, and that sort of attitude is childish, ignorant, and obnoxious.
American people were tried and convicted of aiding Irish terrorists many times and of the specific crimes of arms smuggling, but many terrorist shipments got through the graveyards of my country are testament to it.
I shoot myself I have a 12 gauge shotgun I need on the farm and an .22 air rifle I use for target shooting. All ammunition I must purchase and be recorded on my licence. My guns are inspected regularly in my home by police officers as are all licensed gun holders weapons. My shotgun is a tool I need to do my job it's not a toy or a source of amusement, it is what it is a weapon designed to end life.
The United States Constitution guarantees me the right to bear arms (2nd Amendment), and protection against unreasonable search and seizure (4th Amendment).
I don't speak for all Americans, but I have no interest whatsoever in living as you do in England, and thankfully an ocean separates me from the willful embrace of tyranny, the knee-jerk emotional approaches to lawmaking, and people who assume that the government can protect them from everything.
Ha ha brilliant. I love it when a yank gets all 'up in arms' about their constitution. It just a document folks not Holy Scripture. All documents change with the times, that's what history is all about.
I don't live in England. I live in different part of the United Kingdom. I will leave you to work it out. Enjoy your chewing tobacco.
Pardon me, but aren't there clauses in the Magna Carta still in effect? What would happen over there if those clauses were revoked? BTW, I'm no Skoal brother, never used the stuff.
I don't speak for all Americans, but I have no interest whatsoever in living as you do in England, and thankfully an ocean separates me from the willful embrace of tyranny, the knee-jerk emotional approaches to lawmaking, and people who assume that the government can protect them from everything.
The PATRIOT Act, gun laws that ban guns based on how they look, and if I may be so bold, expecting a personal armory of firearms to protect you from everything is no less a foolish assumption that expecting the government to protect you everything.
Alexzandvar wrote: Perhaps may I suggest that the point I was trying to make was not that "War widows deserve no sympathy" but that it is wrong and immoral to use someones death regardless of how close they were to you to purse a political agenda or to cause more anger and distress. That In seeing the people who lost their husband to the tragedy that was Bengazhi push the idea that because their husband's died the fact that I, by playing Video games was destroying this Country was not only offensive to me because she was insulting me but because she was using the death of an Ambassador Stevens, the two Navy seals, and Sean Smith as a platform from which to insult others.
I know its odd to say, but perhaps the fact that I was offended that she would turn peoples deaths into political talking points proves that I regard military sacrifice with respect rather than what you suggest that I "Don't give a gak about soldiers"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you got pissed at a woman who just lost her husband in a horrific way because someone's wife got offended at the fact you were talking about a video game you were playing at his memorial? It seems to me there is far more to the story than is being told here, and I wish I had the chance to hear what her side of the incident was.
I said that, on the other side of the room, after the memorial while everyone was eating and speaking I quietly mentioned to my father what I would do when I get come. I wasn't loudly announcing my intentions I wasn't attempting to inform anyone other than the person standing right next to me of what I was going to do when I got home.
During the actual memorial outside I was standing silently about 20 feet away from the seating, and would have been incapable of discussing anything with anyone as I was standing by myself with my trumpet.
She also stood up and made her announcement about her dislike of video games and how she hated facebook, and other things ect. The point of all my original posts you seemed to have missed was that I don't think it is right to use soldiers death for political gain regardless of political allegiance.
How did she then hear you, if you were talking quietly on the other side of the room?
I never said she heard me, although I do not discount that did because sometimes I talk louder than I think I do and the room wasn't all that big, but that she went on I tirade about video games and social media in general.
I probably took what she was saying to everyone more personally then I should have, but her way of using her dead husband as a political platform still upset me.
I recommend a trip over over to the Something Awful forums, Sean Smith was an avid poster over there and the way his death has been twisted makes them very upset about it.
You say that she pointed you out right after you talked about it, so I assumed you meant she heard you. To tell the truth, I think her husband being killed upset her quite a bit more than you did. But I think we are taking this too far off topic, so I bow out of this thread.
This was in 2013 not in 2012 so it wasn't RIGHT after it happened. I do get your point about her being upset (because at a memorial people get upset) but it still does not excuse the general use of a persons death as a platform from which to cast hate and bile at other people (Not me in particular).
But at this point the discussion of what happened at that memorial service (or rather what happened at the reception after) has gone the route of me just posting the same thing over and over explaining that the point wasn't she was mad at me, was that she was using a brave mans death to tell everyone what they should hate.
djones520 wrote: It's much more then a document Knockagh. It's a system of belief that I've spent 12 years of my life defending, and have sworn to give my life to, if ever necessary.
It's another one of those culture things. So far, all you've managed to do is insult our culture again and again in this thread. I'm personally getting tired of it.
Its ok. Southern Comfort, Jack Daniels, and dark rum beats Irish whiskey and Irish stew like a redheaded...oh never mind.
I don't speak for all Americans, but I have no interest whatsoever in living as you do in England, and thankfully an ocean separates me from the willful embrace of tyranny, the knee-jerk emotional approaches to lawmaking, and people who assume that the government can protect them from everything.
The PATRIOT Act, gun laws that ban guns based on how they look, and if I may be so bold, expecting a personal armory of firearms to protect you from everything is no less a foolish assumption that expecting the government to protect you everything.
Like the L.A. Riots, where the gun owners were the only ones able to defend their property since the cops there told everyone they were on their own.
I shoot myself I have a 12 gauge shotgun I need on the farm and an .22 air rifle I use for target shooting. All ammunition I must purchase and be recorded on my licence. My guns are inspected regularly in my home by police officers as are all licensed gun holders weapons. My shotgun is a tool I need to do my job it's not a toy or a source of amusement, it is what it is a weapon designed to end life.
So, your job is to End Life. I guess it is good work if you can get it.
I'm amazed that a life taker such as yourself is happy with police regularly coming into your home to inspect your private property. Really is a difference in cultures.
Now in the off chance your job is not to actually End Life, and instead it is to protect property/livestock, then your tool allows you to do so. So now we are looking at the tool as a means to protect life and property, which is the way many of us view the tool. The action of taking a life in the accomplishment of that protection really does not take away the fact that the goal is indeed protection.
Last year in order to protect the life of my livestock I have shot five fox and a stray dog......
Why would anyone have an issue with the police coming into their house?
I don't speak for all Americans, but I have no interest whatsoever in living as you do in England, and thankfully an ocean separates me from the willful embrace of tyranny, the knee-jerk emotional approaches to lawmaking, and people who assume that the government can protect them from everything.
The PATRIOT Act, gun laws that ban guns based on how they look, and if I may be so bold, expecting a personal armory of firearms to protect you from everything is no less a foolish assumption that expecting the government to protect you everything.
Everything? No. But if a bunch of thugs kick down my door at 4 in the morning, I'd rather have an AR15 than a telephone with the President of the United States, Delta Force, Seal Team 6, and Chuck Norris on the other end of the line.
A bomb could be dropped on your house tomorrow. Gun ain't gonna stop it.
An assumption is an assumption. You can either put your father in guns, or government, or pony magic, or all of the above. At the end of the day, it's still an assumption that gets blown out of the water by outliers so my advice is not to live in a fantasy land where you have any more control than most other people.
But if a bunch of thugs kick down my door at 4 in the morning, I'd rather have an AR15 than a telephone with the President of the United States, Delta Force, Seal Team 6, and Chuck Norris on the other end of the line.
And when they gun you down and rob you anyway, which is always a possibility, maybe you'd still be alive if you just let them come and go. Or maybe not.
Alexzandvar wrote: That point of what I was saying was that I the reason I am not all upset and up in arms about the former SEAL's death is because within my family the sacrifice of death in battle is something that is regarded with respect but is not something to be ultra angry or ultra sad over. It is depressing sure, but if we let everything depressing or angering in our lives get to us we would be naught but emotional wrecks all the time.
Call it grim if you want, I call it recognition that my ancestors died for something worth fighting for and that by debasing ourselves and causing more hatred and anger and death over theirs serves not their memory but to poison it and corrupt it.
And Martian man, if you honestly think me talking about how I respect and honor my ancestors and their sacrifice is "hanging myself with my own words" then let me hang. I don't really mind all your scorn, but don't talk as If I do not regard what my family has sacrificed for this country with pride.
Hey Allie:
Not all of us have forgotten our oaths.
Wish you understood yours (or not yet maybe, have you contracted yet ? God I hope not).
Yes I have contracted, 4 year ROTC scholarship .
And what oaths do you speak of? I'm interested to know how in discussing the restriction/allowance of fire arms I am breaking an oath.
To be fair I don't really think the best way to get your point across is insults and implications I am unfit for military service, one of the big reason the Republican Party is losing ground is that insults and bad implications are not a good way to sell a point/political platform/idea
Said the kettle. Time to do a gut check Allie.
I would like you to answer my original question: What oaths am I breaking here?
Your also suggesting that my appeal that others should not let there passion about their right own and use a firearm blind them in the same way people let their political platform blind them
You also don't need to call me Allie, I would like to think we can speak kindly here.
LordofHats wrote: A bomb could be dropped on your house tomorrow. Gun ain't gonna stop it.
An assumption is an assumption. You can either put your father in guns, or government, or pony magic, or all of the above. At the end of the day, it's still an assumption that gets blown out of the water by outliers.
I've never had a bomb dropped on my house. In fact, none of my neighbors have experienced that either. But I have used a lawfully-carried handgun for self defense, and I know several other people who have done the same.
LordofHats wrote: A bomb could be dropped on your house tomorrow. Gun ain't gonna stop it.
An assumption is an assumption. You can either put your father in guns, or government, or pony magic, or all of the above. At the end of the day, it's still an assumption that gets blown out of the water by outliers.
You're going to put your father in guns? Finally someone else who is living the dream I want to live when I die - to be cremated and formed into bullets, to be shot at a list included in the will
Wife: "Stand here"
X: "What are you doing?"
Wife: "Its in the will. Don't move!"
Blam!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I've never had a bomb dropped on my house.
TBone the Magnificent can drop a bomb that will clear a room in seconds.
I've never had a bomb dropped on my house. In fact, none of my neighbors have experienced that either. But I have used a lawfully-carried handgun for self defense, and I know several other people who have done the same.
But if a bunch of thugs kick down my door at 4 in the morning, I'd rather have an AR15 than a telephone with the President of the United States, Delta Force, Seal Team 6, and Chuck Norris on the other end of the line.
And when they gun you down and rob you anyway, which is always a possibility, maybe you'd still be alive if you just let them come and go. Or maybe not. You simply assume that because you have a gun you are safe, which is bull. It makes you feel safer. If you really want to guarantee your safety, you're better off jumping out the back door and running away.
I've never had a bomb dropped on my house. In fact, none of my neighbors have experienced that either. But I have used a lawfully-carried handgun for self defense, and I know several other people who have done the same.
But if a bunch of thugs kick down my door at 4 in the morning, I'd rather have an AR15 than a telephone with the President of the United States, Delta Force, Seal Team 6, and Chuck Norris on the other end of the line.
And when they gun you down and rob you anyway, which is always a possibility, maybe you'd still be alive if you just let them come and go. Or maybe not. You simply assume that because you have a gun you are safe, which is bull. It makes you feel safer. If you really want to guarantee your safety, you're better off jumping out the back door and running away.
In all fairness, if a bunch of thugs break down the front door, I wouldn't run away even if I could because chances are better than good my wife or kids would be trapped in the house with them. I would just as well not prefer to leave my family in the hands of thugs, who are not known for being men of good will.
Why would anyone have an issue with the police coming into their house?
And that there is a difference between cultures wider then oceans.
Police coming in without invite are what we call a dictatorship.
There was a shooting in Alexandria the other day right across from my parents house, I was home at the time and I did not fear the officer who knocked on our door and informed us that the shooting had happened and asked for any information we could provide on the suspect.
He wasn't invited, but I was glad the Alexandria Police Department is willing to go door to door asking if people are okay, and offering to search peoples houses for the suspect if there scared.
I don't understand being afraid of cops, but then again, I live in an area with a well functioning police department and I dislike how police often profile people in places like New York.
Frazzled wrote: Its better to have a gun and not need it, and need it, but not have it.
I'm not arguing against guns per se, but rather that belief the government will protect you is somehow a worse option. Both involve faith (or fathers apparently ), and acting like its a one or nothing deal, or that either is any less an assumption is delusional.
Says someone with knees that let them do more than walk, and not protecting children in the house.
And guns often get used in hypothetical 'what if my house is robbed' scenarios not as a means of protecting the family but as a means of affirming one's own pride (and that's not an insult, it's just a fact). If you want to protect your family, risking a gun fight in your house has some downsides. GTFO or "take what you want" probably have similar chances of success depending*.
*GTFO probably won't work if you're in an apartment
Why would anyone have an issue with the police coming into their house?
And that there is a difference between cultures wider then oceans.
Police coming in without invite are what we call a dictatorship.
There was a shooting in Alexandria the other day right across from my parents house, I was home at the time and I did not fear the officer who knocked on our door and informed us that the shooting had happened and asked for any information we could provide on the suspect.
He wasn't invited, but I was glad the Alexandria Police Department is willing to go door to door asking if people are okay, and offering to search peoples houses for the suspect if there scared.
I don't understand being afraid of cops, but then again, I live in an area with a well functioning police department and I dislike how police often profile people in places like New York.
READ THE DAMN POST.
He said cops COMING IN UNINVITED AND WITHOUT HIS CONSENT TOHIS HOUSE MONTHLY.
Why would anyone have an issue with the police coming into their house?
And that there is a difference between cultures wider then oceans.
Police coming in without invite are what we call a dictatorship.
There was a shooting in Alexandria the other day right across from my parents house, I was home at the time and I did not fear the officer who knocked on our door and informed us that the shooting had happened and asked for any information we could provide on the suspect.
He wasn't invited, but I was glad the Alexandria Police Department is willing to go door to door asking if people are okay, and offering to search peoples houses for the suspect if there scared.
I don't understand being afraid of cops, but then again, I live in an area with a well functioning police department and I dislike how police often profile people in places like New York.
READ THE DAMN POST.
He said cops COMING IN UNINVITED AND WITHOUT HIS CONSENT TOHIS HOUSE MONTHLY.
I apologize for not reading his initial post, but I will say that I did address the fact that being so utterly afraid of the police is irrational.
You and I have different standards of course, you think I'm a "leftie" (and I hope you read D-USA's post on how that's insulting) who wants to sign away your rights.
Honestly I just want people to calm down. I was being silly when I got all passionate about a revolution being possible in another thread and it's just as silly for everyone to be jumping up and down all a tizzy over these gun topics in this thread.
Frazzled wrote: Its better to have a gun and not need it, and need it, but not have it.
I'm not arguing against guns per se, but rather that belief the government will protect you is somehow a worse option. Both involve faith (or fathers apparently ), and acting like its a one or nothing deal, or that either is any less an assumption is delusional.
There is a major difference to me. I cannot control the gov't. I can't control police response times. I can control myself. Putting faith in my abilities based on a pretty decent understanding of my capabilities, strengths and weaknesses makes a lot more sense than putting my faith in unknown folks with no real obligation to do anything in my interests.
I've never had a bomb dropped on my house. In fact, none of my neighbors have experienced that either. But I have used a lawfully-carried handgun for self defense, and I know several other people who have done the same.
But if a bunch of thugs kick down my door at 4 in the morning, I'd rather have an AR15 than a telephone with the President of the United States, Delta Force, Seal Team 6, and Chuck Norris on the other end of the line.
And when they gun you down and rob you anyway, which is always a possibility, maybe you'd still be alive if you just let them come and go. Or maybe not. You simply assume that because you have a gun you are safe, which is bull. It makes you feel safer. If you really want to guarantee your safety, you're better off jumping out the back door and running away.
Not really. I make the reasonable conclusion that, because I am in familiar terrain, in a superior position, with the element of surprise, weilding a weapon through which I've fired tens of thousands of rounds and on which I've trained for thousands of hours (many of which occurred during my tenure as a designated marksman in an Israel Defense Forces airborne infantry brigade), I am probably in a better position using deadly force against armed attackers than I am laying down and praying that they don't hurt me.
Furthermore, my bedroom is on the second floor, and I would rather shoot people than jump out of a window.
Who's afraid of the police? I shoot with them, was taught to shoot by the rangemaster of a major county in California.
I just don't want the government thinking it can barge into my house for no reason whenever it wants. Thats why my relatives fought the British (they were French at the time of course and shouted things like "Vive Le Emperor!" and there was some unpleasantness with holding back some Prussians on a particular day but hey lets not point fingers).
CptJake wrote: Putting faith in my abilities based on a pretty decent understanding of my capabilities, strengths and weaknesses makes a lot more sense than putting my faith in unknown folks with no real obligation to do anything in my interests.
Well they do have an obligation. Whether they live up to that is on them and chance. But this is kind of my point. The gun is a self-affirmation of your own ability, which is fine. We all have things we know we can and can't do, things we think we can and can't do, etc. But really, if three guys break into your house, you have no idea if they're armed or even if there's only three of them. Maybe there's five. In the end, it's still an assumption that you can handle the situation. Short of claymoring every entrance into your house, which is probably inadvisable kids don't do at home, it's still an assumption (and refusal to accept assumptions for what they are is delusion).
Lots of burglars have no interest in hurting anyone or being hurt themselves. Saying "take what you want and go" and relying on that is probably going to get you about as far, but it gives you little control so you don't like the option or want to believe in it even though statistically it'll probably work (again, not saying everyone should do this, or shouldn't keep guns for self-defense, just that pro-gun advocates seem to inflate firearms into offering a lot more than they do)..
Frazzled wrote: Who's afraid of the police? I shoot with them, was taught to shoot by the rangemaster of a major county in California.
I just don't want the government thinking it can barge into my house for no reason whenever it wants. Thats why my relatives fought the British (they were French at the time of course and shouted things like "Vive Le Emperor!" and there was some unpleasantness with holding back some Prussians on a particular day but hey lets not point fingers).
I would be interested to hear what you think of Establishment republicans such as Nixon and Eisenhower, since I ironically hold a lot of views that they did.
Frazzled wrote: Who's afraid of the police? I shoot with them, was taught to shoot by the rangemaster of a major county in California.
I just don't want the government thinking it can barge into my house for no reason whenever it wants. Thats why my relatives fought the British (they were French at the time of course and shouted things like "Vive Le Emperor!" and there was some unpleasantness with holding back some Prussians on a particular day but hey lets not point fingers).
I would be interested to hear what you think of Establishment republicans such as Nixon and Eisenhower, since I ironically hold a lot of views that they did.
Nixon = tricky Dickey
Eisenhower = Loves big governments, or at least big projects. (at least he hated the Nazis )
I suppose if I lived in a country were the police were not trustworthy I wouldn't want the police in my house but I don't thankfully the police here are a professional force who the law abiding community support and enjoy the protection of.
It must be awful to live under a police you can't trust. My heart goes out to you guys. Awful times.
Knockagh wrote: I suppose if I lived in a country were the police were not trustworthy I wouldn't want the police in my house but I don't thankfully the police here are a professional force who the law abiding community support and enjoy the protection of.
It must be awful to live under a police you can't trust. My heart goes out to you guys. Awful times.
O.o
Its not that I don't trust them... I simply don't trust anyone that I don't know.
See the difference?
Besides... You live on a tiny island. The US is ginormous and in some places of the US, the po-po is multi-minutes away, if not hours.
Mr. Smith & Westen may be your only line of defence in some cases.
Knockagh wrote: I suppose if I lived in a country were the police were not trustworthy I wouldn't want the police in my house but I don't thankfully the police here are a professional force who the law abiding community support and enjoy the protection of.
It must be awful to live under a police you can't trust. My heart goes out to you guys. Awful times.
Its not just that some people don't trust the cops, its that the cops aren't going to get there fast enough. ever.
When someone is breaking into your house you need the cops there immediately, but at best they're at least 5-10 minutes away if you live inside city limits. Outside it could be upwards of 30 minutes if you are lucky.
The police almost never stop a criminal act in progress. They play catchup with criminals after the fact, its just how it works. Guns stop crimes, police simply avenge them.
So unless you are so lucky as to call at a time when a Cop happens to be patrolling right by your location they're not going to be there fast enough.
It's what happens when the law forbids gun control and people try to achieve something by workarounds, and then the workarounds are worked around.
Who could have foreseen that when they banned all red cars (As defined by examination under a digital camera and having a "Red" RGB value of 230 or over) that non-red cars of 229 value start appearing on the market.
This is what happens when you play specifics games with people who use and work with machines and specifications on a regular basis.
It's what happens when the law forbids gun control and people try to achieve something by workarounds, and then the workarounds are worked around.
Who could have foreseen that when they banned all red cars (As defined by examination under a digital camera and having a "Red" RGB value of 230 or over) that non-red cars of 229 value start appearing on the market.
This is what happens when you play specifics games with people who use and work with machines and specifications on a regular basis.
Wait... is that a real thing? (or is this one of those screened-doors submarine jokes?)
As in, a certain red color cars to circumvent traffic cams?
Kilkrazy wrote: It's what happens when the law forbids gun control and people try to achieve something by workarounds, and then the workarounds are worked around.
So-called "assault" weapons could easily be dispensed with by banning self-loading weapons. People would still be able to have revolvers, shotguns and bolt-action rifles. These are certainly good enough for target shooting, hunting and home defence.
A six round revolver that is slow to reload and has a limited capacity is good for home defense? When you factor in the adrenaline dump and how is takes multiple rounds to down a single assailant then you may wish to revise what you consider "good enough".
Bolt action rifles are too slow for multiple assailants, cumbersome in close quarters and often have a limited magazine
Shotguns produce a lot of recoil and are not suited for every frame.
This law is a farce because it tackles a firearm based on it's characteristics. It is wholly ineffective and a waste of time. Shootings with legally held rifles are in a significant minority.
Knockagh wrote: Examples?? I lived near a farmer who owned 2 ak47's. The weapon I grew up with being used to murder innocent people in the streets and bars of my city.
He had an armalite, a weapon that was used to injure a good friend of my fathers who happened to go shopping on the wrong day.
Many of the weapons that fond their way illegally into my country were bought without restriction in the states and shipped here by people who used the lax gun laws to murder innocent civilians. Tragic?
Don't let the flag fool you, I'm originally from the North myself.
Yeah.... you do know that most of those weapons came from LIbya (for the IRA) or South Africa (for the Loyalists) right? The amount of firearms that made their way from the United States to Northern Ireland is minuscule by comparison.
You seem to be conflating legal ownership by law abiding citizens with illegal ownership by terrorist groups. That is not exactly comparing apples with apples.
Knockagh wrote: American people were tried and convicted of aiding Irish terrorists many times and of the specific crimes of arms smuggling, but many terrorist shipments got through the graveyards of my country are testament to it.
I shoot myself I have a 12 gauge shotgun I need on the farm and an .22 air rifle I use for target shooting. All ammunition I must purchase and be recorded on my licence. My guns are inspected regularly in my home by police officers as are all licensed gun holders weapons. My shotgun is a tool I need to do my job it's not a toy or a source of amusement, it is what it is a weapon designed to end life.
And rifles used for hunting etc. and held legally in the United States are not?
You seem very hung up on the whole assault rifle thing, so to help me understand your point better what do you understand an assault rifle to be?
And is that why the illustrious North is such a bitter little hole with everyone clinging onto their flags?
Knockagh wrote: Ha ha brilliant. I love it when a yank gets all 'up in arms' about their constitution. It just a document folks not Holy Scripture. All documents change with the times, that's what history is all about.
You are correct, it is not holy scripture. It is a legal document and is primary legislation that other legislation is subordinate to.
Knockagh wrote: I suppose if I lived in a country were the police were not trustworthy I wouldn't want the police in my house but I don't thankfully the police here are a professional force who the law abiding community support and enjoy the protection of.
It must be awful to live under a police you can't trust. My heart goes out to you guys. Awful times.
I'm sorry. Did someone who is living in the North of Ireland just post that statement? Perhaps you would care to investigate the history of collusion between the security services and terrorists. I recommend starting with the Stalker Inquiry. Or maybe read up on how the Police helped conceal the truth of Bloody Sunday which helped serve as the IRA's best recruiting tool and helped fuel the violence. And a lot of the people involved with those programs made the leap from the RUC to the PSNI.
CptJake wrote: Putting faith in my abilities based on a pretty decent understanding of my capabilities, strengths and weaknesses makes a lot more sense than putting my faith in unknown folks with no real obligation to do anything in my interests.
Well they do have an obligation. Whether they live up to that is on them and chance. But this is kind of my point. The gun is a self-affirmation of your own ability, which is fine. We all have things we know we can and can't do, things we think we can and can't do, etc. But really, if three guys break into your house, you have no idea if they're armed or even if there's only three of them. Maybe there's five. In the end, it's still an assumption that you can handle the situation. Short of claymoring every entrance into your house, which is probably inadvisable kids don't do at home, it's still an assumption (and refusal to accept assumptions for what they are is delusion).
No, they really don't have an obligation to act in my best interests, not a legal one nor a moral one. And your hypothetical is just that, I can wargame through that situation many ways, the reality is (based on experience) you'll never have close to prefect knowledge of how good or bad a situation really is until after the fact. Frankly 3 or more or less, armed or unarmed, hostile or looking fro quick stuff, all end up in the giant category of 'someone who ain't supposed to be here is'. I don't assume I can handle the situation. I know I can act to influence the situation as it develops, even as it develops fast. I've been in bad situations before. Again, I place faith in knowing my strengths and weaknesses and how to influence a situation to take advantage of one and mitigate the other. As the 'guy on the scene' as opposed to some unknown govt worker an unknown response time away I guess I refuse to place faith (or responsibility for my family and property) in that unknown.
CptJake wrote: Putting faith in my abilities based on a pretty decent understanding of my capabilities, strengths and weaknesses makes a lot more sense than putting my faith in unknown folks with no real obligation to do anything in my interests.
It's the very last element of it - the fact that the police have no duty to actually protect any citizen - coupled with the incredibly slow response times in my semi-rural area - that weighed heavily into my eventual concealed carry permit.
Cops who don't do their job (ideally) are fired. And yeah. They do have a moral obligation to help you. They can't teleport to your house at the snap of a finger, but acting like every low brow robbery is a life of death struggle is just fear mongering. Whether they live up to their obligations is on them. But standing around jerking off while on duty is the text book definition of immoral, not to mention unethical.
I know I can act to influence the situation as it develops, even as it develops fast. I've been in bad situations before. Again, I place faith in knowing my strengths and weaknesses and how to influence a situation to take advantage of one and mitigate the other.
Which is fine. I'm more opposed to the "guns solve all problems" types, who pretend it can't go bad, in spite of the fact it can go very very bad. Getting out of a bad situation when possible and waiting for the cops, is not terrible idea. Confrontation isn't the best solution to all problems, and while the cops can't master the technique of instant transmission to any location at will, you can rely they'll show up eventually.
Things can be replaced, and many buildings have more than one exit (hence my bringing up the issue of apartments). Violence is not the only solution and the 'gun um down' attitude isn't very endearing.
CptJake wrote: Putting faith in my abilities based on a pretty decent understanding of my capabilities, strengths and weaknesses makes a lot more sense than putting my faith in unknown folks with no real obligation to do anything in my interests.
It's the very last element of it - the fact that the police have no duty to actually protect any citizen - coupled with the incredibly slow response times in my semi-rural area - that weighed heavily into my eventual concealed carry permit.
Yup... as a reminder, in Warren v. District of Columbia, police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals.
And in 2005, the SC again ruled in Castle Rock v. Gonzales that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman (in this ruling) who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
That last case kind of makes you shake with anger, doesn't it?
There was another similar case in NY as well with the transit police IIRC where the cops did not engage someone who was busy stabbing somebody because they were afraid he might have a gun.
Cops who don't do their job (ideally) are fired. And yeah. They do have a moral obligation to help you. They can't teleport to your house at the snap of a finger, but acting like every low brow robbery is a life of death struggle is just fear mongering. Whether they live up to their obligations is on them. But standing around jerking off while on duty is the text book definition of immoral, not to mention unethical.
I know I can act to influence the situation as it develops, even as it develops fast. I've been in bad situations before. Again, I place faith in knowing my strengths and weaknesses and how to influence a situation to take advantage of one and mitigate the other.
Which is fine. I'm more opposed to the "guns solve all problems" types, who pretend it can't go bad, in spite of the fact it can go very very bad. Getting out of a bad situation when possible and waiting for the cops, is not terrible idea. Confrontation isn't the best solution to all problems, and while the cops can't master the technique of instant transmission to any location at will, you can rely they'll show up eventually.
Things can be replaced, and many buildings have more than one exit (hence my bringing up the issue of apartments). Violence is not the only solution and the 'gun um down' attitude isn't very endearing.
Didn't some cops and some other bikers pull a guy out of a car and beat him senseless in front of his wife and kids? I swear I heard that up in some Yankee place recently.
Cops who don't do their job (ideally) are fired. And yeah. They do have a moral obligation to help you. They can't teleport to your house at the snap of a finger, but acting like every low brow robbery is a life of death struggle is just fear mongering. Whether they live up to their obligations is on them. But standing around jerking off while on duty is the text book definition of immoral, not to mention unethical.
I know I can act to influence the situation as it develops, even as it develops fast. I've been in bad situations before. Again, I place faith in knowing my strengths and weaknesses and how to influence a situation to take advantage of one and mitigate the other.
Which is fine. I'm more opposed to the "guns solve all problems" types, who pretend it can't go bad, in spite of the fact it can go very very bad. Getting out of a bad situation when possible and waiting for the cops, is not terrible idea. Confrontation isn't the best solution to all problems, and while the cops can't master the technique of instant transmission to any location at will, you can rely they'll show up eventually.
Things can be replaced, and many buildings have more than one exit (hence my bringing up the issue of apartments). Violence is not the only solution and the 'gun um down' attitude isn't very endearing.
Didn't some cops and some other bikers pull a guy out of a car and beat him senseless in front of his wife and kids? I swear I heard that up in some Yankee place recently.
Naw, that kind of thing happens over the Macon County Line!
Cartel hitman testifies to 800 murders, daily quotas at kingpin's trial
By Joseph J. Kolb /
Published February 11, 2014 / FoxNews.comSince Arturo Gallegos Castrellon was arrested in 2010, the murder rate in Juarez has plummeted. (AP)
EL PASO, Texas – The ongoing trial of a man accused of killing three U.S. Consulate workers and family members in Juarez is revealing the shocking depravity of one of Mexico’s most violent gangs, including the charge that it had a daily murder quota calibrated to instill fear in police and the public.
Jesus Ernesto Chavez Castillo, a star witness in the murder trial of Arturo Gallegos Castrellon, told jurors in an El Paso federal courtroom how the Barrio Azteca Gang Catrellon grew from a Texas jail gang into contract killers for the notorious Juarez cartel. Thousands of murders committed by the gang over a four-year period helped Juarez earn the dubious title of "Murder Capital of the World."
Chavez testified he stopped counting the number of people he killed at 800, and said he often beheaded and dismembered victims to impress his boss. The idea was "that it would be big news," he said.
“I feel I did the right thing, since I did so much wrong.”
- Jesus Ernesto Chavez Castillo
“I feel I did the right thing, since I did so much wrong,” Chavez said in court, explaining why he was now testifying against his former boss.
Castrellon is accused of ordering the March 13, 2010, shootings of Lesley Enriquez, her husband, El Paso County Sheriff's Officer Arthur Redfels, and Jorge Alberto Salcido Ceniceros, husband of another consulate employee. Earlier this month, an FBI agent and another former gang member testified that the shootings may have been a case of mistaken identity.
The victims were driving in a white Honda Pilot and a Toyota SUV following the birthday party of a consulate co-worker’s child. The Pilot matched the description of a vehicle rival gang members had been spotted in, according to witnesses.
But the revelations about the Juarez cartel’s brutality in its long-running war with the rival Sinaloa cartel have cast a chilling pall over the trial. The Sinaloa cartel ultimately won control of the drug trade route into the El Paso region.
While it may not be possible to prove how many murders are attributable to the Barrio Azteca Gang or the cartel it worked for, what is certain is that after the arrests of 35 members for the 2010 killings, the murder rate in the violent city plummeted to 2,086 in 2011 from 3,622 a year earlier. In 2012, it declined to 751.
But the real reason for the decline in murders was that the Sinaloa cartel won the war, according to Stratfor Mexico Security Analyst Tristan Reed.
“The murder rate in Juarez persisted because you had two powerful criminal organizations providing the weaponry, money and illicit drugs to push gangs to kill one another,” Reed said.
With the Sinaloa cartel and its elusive leader, Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, unrivaled, the body count in Juarez has slowed, he said.
But the Barrio Aztecas, implicated in numerous high-profile El Paso murders in recent years, are still active on the Texas side.
“It is important to remember that Los Aztecas are still a very dangerous street gang operating in both Mexico and the United States,” Reed said. “However, their ability to carry out violence as seen in 2010 is no longer around.”
The police force here were always supported by the overwhelming majority of law abiding citizens and that remains so. It was a messy conflict, it always is when you fight terrorists who hide behind woman and children.
Every gun or bullet supplied to terrorists from America, South Africa or Libia compounded the suffering of the people of this country. There is no excuse for terrorism ever or an excuse for the support of it. No matter how large or small the quality. It only takes one round to kill.
I'm no expert but I would class an assault weapon as one that is automatic.
The police force here were always supported by the overwhelming majority of law abiding citizens and that remains so. It was a messy conflict, it always is when you fight terrorists who hide behind woman and children.
Every gun or bullet supplied to terrorists from America, South Africa or Libia compounded the suffering of the people of this country. There is no excuse for terrorism ever or an excuse for the support of it. No matter how large or small the quality. It only takes one round to kill.
I'm no expert but I would class an assault weapon as one that is automatic.
If that's your classification, then you're utterly wrong in blaming the US. it's stupid difficult to get an automatic weapon here, and the people who do so legally certainly aren't shipping them overseas to be used by terrorists.
Knockagh wrote: The police force here were always supported by the overwhelming majority of law abiding citizens and that remains so. It was a messy conflict, it always is when you fight terrorists who hide behind woman and children.
No they have not. In no way shape or form have the RUC/PSNI been "always supported by the overwhelming majority of law abiding citizens". To claim otherwise is a monstrous falsehood. Otherwise there would have been no need for the Patton report into policing in the province, nor the need to reform the PSNI.
Knockagh wrote: Every gun or bullet supplied to terrorists from America, South Africa or Libia compounded the suffering of the people of this country. There is no excuse for terrorism ever or an excuse for the support of it. No matter how large or small the quality. It only takes one round to kill.
Then place the blame where it belongs - in the hands of those that carried out the violence.
Knockagh wrote: I'm no expert but I would class an assault weapon as one that is automatic.
Clearly. An assault weapon is typically defined as being a magazine fed firearm, chambered for an intermediate round, capable of select fire.
It is a shame then that automatic weapons are very difficult to get as a private citizen in the United States, and typically requires applying for a Type III license. The firearms, such as the one you have been objecting to in this thread, that are subject to the inane legislation are semi automatic firearms. They get called "assault rifles" because they look scary, and are similar in appearance to military rifles despite the difference in the fire controls. Having a pistol grip, folding stock, flash hider, bayonet lug (all of which were in danger of branding Civil War ere firearms "assault weapons") are cosmetic in nature and do not affect the rifle's operation.
Frazzled wrote: Who's afraid of the police? I shoot with them, was taught to shoot by the rangemaster of a major county in California.
I just don't want the government thinking it can barge into my house for no reason whenever it wants. Thats why my relatives fought the British (they were French at the time of course and shouted things like "Vive Le Emperor!" and there was some unpleasantness with holding back some Prussians on a particular day but hey lets not point fingers).
I would be interested to hear what you think of Establishment republicans such as Nixon and Eisenhower, since I ironically hold a lot of views that they did.
Nixon = tricky Dickey
Eisenhower = Loves big governments, or at least big projects. (at least he hated the Nazis )
What do you think of the government having to send in the national guard because some states and schools refused to integrate?
I won't ask you any questions about Nixon, because I know that with how you feel about Bengazhi and presidential power Nixon must be turbo hitler to you.
I know the fact some states and cities have issues with a lackluster police force, but honestly I don't think it's right to make the statement that you should carry or keep one in the home because you can't trust cops.
As I pointed out earlier the Alexandria Police Department is great They do lots of out reach, they help out at schools (hint hint to those who think we need to arm teachers) and since the murder across the street the police have done everything they can to keep people safe.
I would go into greater detail of how if we spent more money on our Police Departments (The APD is very well funded) and helped implement some more Federal standards country wise for police fitness and training wise we could do a lot of good but I know that would be quite literally chumming the water in a board that leans Libertarian/hard right.
and before anyone says that because I live in a nice area means I have no idea what your talking about, we keep stored weapons in our farm house out in the country for a reason, local PD just doesn't have enough man power to cover the area.
I know the fact some states and cities have issues with a lackluster police force, but honestly I don't think it's right to make the statement that you should carry or keep one in the home because you can't trust cops.
Its not about trusting cops, its about knowing the Law of Time. The police, even speeding as fast as humanly possible, will not get there fast enough to save you or your family from an attacker. Thats not slighting them. Thats recognizing they are not wizards possessed of Star Trek transporter technology.
we keep stored weapons in our farm house out in the country for a reason,
Ayah When I was growing up, everyone had a shotgun at the front or back door. If you came in from hunting, you would stack up your long guns there. Of course back them people also always had a cheap beater 30/30 or such on a shotgun rack on their pickup.
Yeah, Frazzled beat me to it. It's not that I don't think my local Sheriff's office is great, because they seem to be, but that they are generally 30 minutes away.
I know the fact some states and cities have issues with a lackluster police force, but honestly I don't think it's right to make the statement that you should carry or keep one in the home because you can't trust cops.
Its not about trusting cops, its about knowing the Law of Time.
The police, even speeding as fast as humanly possible, will not get there fast enough to save you or your family from an attacker. Thats not slighting them. Thats recognizing they are not wizards possessed of Star Trek transporter technology.
I should have clarified that I think its fine for people to carry or keep in general be it for hunting or range shooting and home defense but the thing about cops is honestly just another issue that needs resolving, and that gun proliferation is just a band aid on the problem.
I have family out in Colorado that own a lot of guns, but there all pro gun control (As in laws mandating proper securing and using of firearms not the ability to posses it) because they have seen more than enough hunting accident's and kids get a hold of something they shouldn't that it does need to be addressed.
My uncle (A game warden) said it best "Gun safety ain't just about preventing the wrong people from getting guns, it's about making sure when people get the guns they know what there doing, because when sally soo wife of the guy who a rookie hunter accidentally shot gets mad, she gets mad at the twit who got away with being able to carry with out know what he's doin"
Alexzandvar wrote: My uncle (A game warden) said it best "Gun safety ain't just about preventing the wrong people from getting guns, it's about making sure when people get the guns they know what there doing, because when sally soo wife of the guy who a rookie hunter accidentally shot gets mad, she gets mad at the twit who got away with being able to carry with out know what he's doin"
I'm, uh, not sure he said it best. Whatever "it" is.
AS for practice. The wife practices once a month in the winter, twice a month in the summer. The daughter practices once a month. With the Obama bullet bubble starting to abate I am ratcheting back up to 1,000 - 1,500 a month and try to make three area or club matches a month. So I think I'm ok.
Texas State IDPA registration's opened up boys. Bring your A game and remember, it is wrong to be from Dallas!
Alexzandvar wrote: My uncle (A game warden) said it best "Gun safety ain't just about preventing the wrong people from getting guns, it's about making sure when people get the guns they know what there doing, because when sally soo wife of the guy who a rookie hunter accidentally shot gets mad, she gets mad at the twit who got away with being able to carry with out know what he's doin"
I'm, uh, not sure he said it best. Whatever "it" is.
What hes saying is that people should be far more worried about people being able to handle guns and the responsibility that comes with it rather than say, just preventing people from owning them.
AS for practice. The wife practices once a month in the winter, twice a month in the summer. The daughter practices once a month. With the Obama bullet bubble starting to abate I am ratcheting back up to 1,000 - 1,500 a month and try to make three area or club matches a month. So I think I'm ok.
Texas State IDPA registration's opened up boys. Bring your A game and remember, it is wrong to be from Dallas!
Since Iv been though basic I have started to go to the range more, but in ye olden day of high school and before I trained with my dads old officers pistol and a Civil War era revolver (The shotgun under the main barrel has quite the kick).
And I have to comment frazzled, you are so utterly Texan I can smell BBQ and cow gak every time you post
As I pointed out earlier the Alexandria Police Department is great They do lots of out reach, they help out at schools (hint hint to those who think we need to arm teachers) and since the murder across the street the police have done everything they can to keep people safe.
When you have Seconds to spare, the police are only Minutes away goes the old saying.... And Outreach is completely different from arming teachers... Outreach is stuff like DARE, STARS and the like... and basically all those programs do diddly to really affect people in a meaningful way in the long run. Outreach is not the same thing as "standing guard" or otherwise actively protecting kids.
As I pointed out earlier the Alexandria Police Department is great They do lots of out reach, they help out at schools (hint hint to those who think we need to arm teachers) and since the murder across the street the police have done everything they can to keep people safe.
When you have Seconds to spare, the police are only Minutes away goes the old saying.... And Outreach is completely different from arming teachers... Outreach is stuff like DARE, STARS and the like... and basically all those programs do diddly to really affect people in a meaningful way in the long run. Outreach is not the same thing as "standing guard" or otherwise actively protecting kids.
I mean outreach as in those things plus literally having at least two officers at the school all the time. My school is a big one granted (2,500 kids) and the officers here have done a lot towards stopping fights, helping prevent bullying, and just being nice people in general.
School newspaper also did a poll of how many teachers would be willing to carry and they could only find one who would be comfortable keeping a firearm in the class room.
Frazzled wrote: Who's afraid of the police? I shoot with them, was taught to shoot by the rangemaster of a major county in California.
I just don't want the government thinking it can barge into my house for no reason whenever it wants. Thats why my relatives fought the British (they were French at the time of course and shouted things like "Vive Le Emperor!" and there was some unpleasantness with holding back some Prussians on a particular day but hey lets not point fingers).
I would be interested to hear what you think of Establishment republicans such as Nixon and Eisenhower, since I ironically hold a lot of views that they did.
Nixon = tricky Dickey
Eisenhower = Loves big governments, or at least big projects. (at least he hated the Nazis )
What do you think of the government having to send in the national guard because some states and schools refused to integrate?
A great thing.
Keep in mind, the President CAN federalize the National Guard. There's specific laws allowing the President to do so...
I won't ask you any questions about Nixon, because I know that with how you feel about Bengazhi and presidential power Nixon must be turbo hitler to you.
Frazzled wrote: Who's afraid of the police? I shoot with them, was taught to shoot by the rangemaster of a major county in California.
I just don't want the government thinking it can barge into my house for no reason whenever it wants. Thats why my relatives fought the British (they were French at the time of course and shouted things like "Vive Le Emperor!" and there was some unpleasantness with holding back some Prussians on a particular day but hey lets not point fingers).
I would be interested to hear what you think of Establishment republicans such as Nixon and Eisenhower, since I ironically hold a lot of views that they did.
Nixon = tricky Dickey
Eisenhower = Loves big governments, or at least big projects. (at least he hated the Nazis )
What do you think of the government having to send in the national guard because some states and schools refused to integrate?
A great thing.
Keep in mind, the President CAN federalize the National Guard. There's specific laws allowing the President to do so...
I won't ask you any questions about Nixon, because I know that with how you feel about Bengazhi and presidential power Nixon must be turbo hitler to you.
Nixon was before my time... so, who knows.
Turbo hitler? o.O
I only asked because I know how you feel about The President (dun dun dun)
Anyway, Nixon was a pretty damn good president, opened up China, gave us the EPA and spent a good amount of money on building better social programs!
Aside from him doing political sabotage of course, although it's to be said any man with Nixon's personality and drive probably wouldn't mix well with Congressmen especially today.
Alexzandvar wrote: That point of what I was saying was that I the reason I am not all upset and up in arms about the former SEAL's death is because within my family the sacrifice of death in battle is something that is regarded with respect but is not something to be ultra angry or ultra sad over. It is depressing sure, but if we let everything depressing or angering in our lives get to us we would be naught but emotional wrecks all the time.
Call it grim if you want, I call it recognition that my ancestors died for something worth fighting for and that by debasing ourselves and causing more hatred and anger and death over theirs serves not their memory but to poison it and corrupt it.
And Martian man, if you honestly think me talking about how I respect and honor my ancestors and their sacrifice is "hanging myself with my own words" then let me hang. I don't really mind all your scorn, but don't talk as If I do not regard what my family has sacrificed for this country with pride.
You are beginning to sound like that British butt head who keeps invoking his brother who is a British Soldier as the reason he should be allowed to act like an expert on something he obviously knows nothing about. If you think the close family members of those who died are not angry then that is because they apparently have left you out of their real feelings....
You lose someone you get pissed, really really resentful and angry at the folks back home who are clueless and the politicians who do not care but you keep it in close to those who will understand. I am guessing they think you will not understand and from what you have posted I can see why....
Alexzandvar wrote: That point of what I was saying was that I the reason I am not all upset and up in arms about the former SEAL's death is because within my family the sacrifice of death in battle is something that is regarded with respect but is not something to be ultra angry or ultra sad over. It is depressing sure, but if we let everything depressing or angering in our lives get to us we would be naught but emotional wrecks all the time.
Call it grim if you want, I call it recognition that my ancestors died for something worth fighting for and that by debasing ourselves and causing more hatred and anger and death over theirs serves not their memory but to poison it and corrupt it.
And Martian man, if you honestly think me talking about how I respect and honor my ancestors and their sacrifice is "hanging myself with my own words" then let me hang. I don't really mind all your scorn, but don't talk as If I do not regard what my family has sacrificed for this country with pride.
You are beginning to sound like that British butt head who keeps invoking his brother who is a British Soldier as the reason he should be allowed to act like an expert on something he obviously knows nothing about. If you think the close family members of those who died are not angry then that is because they apparently have left you out of their real feelings....
You lose someone you get pissed, really really resentful and angry at the folks back home who are clueless and the politicians who do not care but you keep it in close to those who will understand. I am guessing they think you will not understand and from what you have posted I can see why....
Passing over the very inappropriate remarks about said British poster I would like to tell you I think it's wrong to imply I have no idea what loss is despite as saying earlier, people in my family dying in military service isn't exactly a rare thing.
Going out of the military service death category, I had a friend who sat across me for all of AP English my Junior year of high school, and during my senior year I woke up one day and went to school only to find out she had died the previous night in a horrible car accident.
It sucked like a motherfething chest wound, to know I had interacted with that person on a daily basis, hell, even sought out to share time with them after school and that all of a sudden she was just dead was awful.
I won't tell you how to take loss, and I won't question how you treat your dead, but I will ask if all the bitterness you demonstrate in calling our politicians and folks back home clueless is right, because there is a lot of people who have lost family members to war and those people go on and do things in their life be it politics or just every day citizen things.
I also find the fact that you imply my cousins girlfriend didn't share her feelings with me despite inviting me to the funeral and crying on my shoulder at the reception to be very offensive. Or that my father wasn't being honest when he told me about how my namesake died fighting for this country and how much he respects him for that (As in naming his son after him).
Seriously, real talk, my entire point of all my posts on the subject of soldiers death's were about how using them as a political spring board is wrong. So argue with my point, and stop it with the whole "You don't rage post about how much you hate politicians and clueless people because someone who was close to died so I think your a bad person"
I hate misinformed reactionary law no matter what the subject matter. I am not sure if I would go as far to say I am anti gun but I am not pro gun either. I am glad guns are illegal in the UK but that doesn't mean I think the same thing would work for America.
Longer wait times, limit on Magazine size and compressive background checks are all things I personally would consider reasonable laws. Others more knowledgable may disagree and I would be happy to hear their reasons.
Laws by people who do not understand what they are legislating and are too lazy to do the research are ridiculous. Especially laws that ban things because they look scary.
I think there are plenty of morons on both sides of the gun control debate. Gun control laws should be about keeping people safe and reducing harm not about scoring political points, hell all laws should be about that. Its a shame that working together seems to be an alien concept in politics.
Also did a poster from the UK really say the police can come into his house uninvited any time without his permission? Because warrants are a thing in the UK too, I am not a lawyer but pretty sure the police are not allowed to do that.
carlos13th wrote: I hate misinformed reactionary law no matter what the subject matter. I am not sure if I would go as far to say I am anti gun but I am not pro gun either. I am glad guns are illegal in the UK but that doesn't mean I think the same thing would work for America.
Longer wait times, limit on Magazine size and compressive background checks are all things I personally would consider reasonable laws. Others more knowledgable may disagree and I would be happy to hear their reasons.
Laws by people who do not understand what they are legislating and are too lazy to do the research are ridiculous. Especially laws that ban things because they look scary.
I think there are plenty of morons on both sides of the gun control debate. Gun control laws should be about keeping people safe and reducing harm not about scoring political points, hell all laws should be about that. Its a shame that working together seems to be an alien concept in politics.
Also did a poster from the UK really say the police can come into his house uninvited any time without his permission? Because warrants are a thing in the UK too, I am not a lawyer but pretty sure the police are not allowed to do that.
Well, I'll address one of your "reasonable" laws. Take a look back at a picture on the first page. That'll show you how well magazine restrictions work. I could also post tons of video's that show people proving that smaller magazines in no way mitigates a firearms ability to sling led.
Alexzandvar wrote: That point of what I was saying was that I the reason I am not all upset and up in arms about the former SEAL's death is because within my family the sacrifice of death in battle is something that is regarded with respect but is not something to be ultra angry or ultra sad over. It is depressing sure, but if we let everything depressing or angering in our lives get to us we would be naught but emotional wrecks all the time.
Call it grim if you want, I call it recognition that my ancestors died for something worth fighting for and that by debasing ourselves and causing more hatred and anger and death over theirs serves not their memory but to poison it and corrupt it.
And Martian man, if you honestly think me talking about how I respect and honor my ancestors and their sacrifice is "hanging myself with my own words" then let me hang. I don't really mind all your scorn, but don't talk as If I do not regard what my family has sacrificed for this country with pride.
You are beginning to sound like that British butt head who keeps invoking his brother who is a British Soldier as the reason he should be allowed to act like an expert on something he obviously knows nothing about. If you think the close family members of those who died are not angry then that is because they apparently have left you out of their real feelings....
You lose someone you get pissed, really really resentful and angry at the folks back home who are clueless and the politicians who do not care but you keep it in close to those who will understand. I am guessing they think you will not understand and from what you have posted I can see why....
Passing over the very inappropriate remarks about said British poster I would like to tell you I think it's wrong to imply I have no idea what loss is despite as saying earlier, people in my family dying in military service isn't exactly a rare thing.
Going out of the military service death category, I had a friend who sat across me for all of AP English my Junior year of high school, and during my senior year I woke up one day and went to school only to find out she had died the previous night in a horrible car accident.
It sucked like a motherfething chest wound, to know I had interacted with that person on a daily basis, hell, even sought out to share time with them after school and that all of a sudden she was just dead was awful.
I won't tell you how to take loss, and I won't question how you treat your dead, but I will ask if all the bitterness you demonstrate in calling our politicians and folks back home clueless is right, because there is a lot of people who have lost family members to war and those people go on and do things in their life be it politics or just every day citizen things.
I also find the fact that you imply my cousins girlfriend didn't share her feelings with me despite inviting me to the funeral and crying on my shoulder at the reception to be very offensive. Or that my father wasn't being honest when he told me about how my namesake died fighting for this country and how much he respects him for that (As in naming his son after him).
Seriously, real talk, my entire point of all my posts on the subject of soldiers death's were about how using them as a political spring board is wrong. So argue with my point, and stop it with the whole "You don't rage post about how much you hate politicians and clueless people because someone who was close to died so I think your a bad person"
I'm calling total and complete BS on the idea that soldiers take death in stride and its just a part of life. I spent two years in Iraq and I saw soldiers die and I saw how soldiers deal with it. It aint pretty. They feel it and feel it more so than you will probably never know. You don't know what you are talking about and you need to stop talking because people who have been there and dealt with it know you're utterly wrong. Or does your ROTC experience trump real world experience? (also, the oaths they believe you are breaking are in defending the constitution. Specifically the 2nd A.)
For me, an armed citizenry is essential in keeping liberty and freedom. It has nothing to do with hunting and very little to do with self defense. (That's just an added benefit.) As for the guy saying that legal gun ownership in America helps terrorists, no, criminals breaking the laws help terrorists. The laws are already there. Enforce them better and there wouldn't be a problem.
Also, my AK 47 isn't fully automatic, so I guess it's not an assault rifle. Sweet! So I'm safe from the anti-gunners!
carlos13th wrote: I hate misinformed reactionary law no matter what the subject matter. I am not sure if I would go as far to say I am anti gun but I am not pro gun either. I am glad guns are illegal in the UK but that doesn't mean I think the same thing would work for America.
Longer wait times, limit on Magazine size and compressive background checks are all things I personally would consider reasonable laws. Others more knowledgable may disagree and I would be happy to hear their reasons.
Laws by people who do not understand what they are legislating and are too lazy to do the research are ridiculous. Especially laws that ban things because they look scary.
I think there are plenty of morons on both sides of the gun control debate. Gun control laws should be about keeping people safe and reducing harm not about scoring political points, hell all laws should be about that. Its a shame that working together seems to be an alien concept in politics.
Also did a poster from the UK really say the police can come into his house uninvited any time without his permission? Because warrants are a thing in the UK too, I am not a lawyer but pretty sure the police are not allowed to do that.
Well, I'll address one of your "reasonable" laws. Take a look back at a picture on the first page. That'll show you how well magazine restrictions work. I could also post tons of video's that show people proving that smaller magazines in no way mitigates a firearms ability to sling led.
How do you feel about an expanding back rounds check system with a national data base that links up with mental health data bases?
I ask because, well, now that Obama is doing what most president's do (republican or democrat) when faced with an obstructive congress: use executive orders, so stuff like this will happen.
I don't want to see our gun freedoms leeched away because i believe the end goal is to remove all fire arms from the street. Granted that would be in the far distant future but that is the direction I believe it is headed.
One day while I was on duty an intruder broke into our house and chased my wife who was carrying our six month old up the stairs with a steak knife. She barricaded the door with the baby crib and after a few moments he was able to start breaking through it, the only thing that saved my family was the fact that we keep a loaded .40 in a lock box in the bedroom. I was able to make it from my station home before pd was able to get a responding unit. I know the media focuses on all of the negative shootings that happen but there are equally as many examples of when guns are used for good things as well.
carlos13th wrote: I hate misinformed reactionary law no matter what the subject matter. I am not sure if I would go as far to say I am anti gun but I am not pro gun either. I am glad guns are illegal in the UK but that doesn't mean I think the same thing would work for America.
Longer wait times, limit on Magazine size and compressive background checks are all things I personally would consider reasonable laws. Others more knowledgable may disagree and I would be happy to hear their reasons.
Laws by people who do not understand what they are legislating and are too lazy to do the research are ridiculous. Especially laws that ban things because they look scary.
I think there are plenty of morons on both sides of the gun control debate. Gun control laws should be about keeping people safe and reducing harm not about scoring political points, hell all laws should be about that. Its a shame that working together seems to be an alien concept in politics.
Also did a poster from the UK really say the police can come into his house uninvited any time without his permission? Because warrants are a thing in the UK too, I am not a lawyer but pretty sure the police are not allowed to do that.
Well, I'll address one of your "reasonable" laws. Take a look back at a picture on the first page. That'll show you how well magazine restrictions work. I could also post tons of video's that show people proving that smaller magazines in no way mitigates a firearms ability to sling led.
How do you feel about an expanding back rounds check system with a national data base that links up with mental health data bases?
I ask because, well, now that Obama is doing what most president's do (republican or democrat) when faced with an obstructive congress: use executive orders, so stuff like this will happen.
Firstly, any action Obama takes on it, will most likely be wrong. There is going to have to be a lot done other then just an executive order. Mental Health records are protected just like all medical records are. We're talking Supreme Court level before that horse gets figured out. Secondly, a stringent method is going to have to be figured out to determine what level of mental health deficiencies will restrict rights to gun ownership. With the right people leading this, it could enact such draconian measures it would make Feinsteinn smile to her grave, and that is simply unnacceptable. It's easy to point at mental health and say "reasonable", but there will be nothing reasonable about the issue, and much blood (figuratively speaking) will be spread over the issue.
What I would like to see is a more robust mental health care system then can find the people who truly pose a threat, and then we can get them the help they need, or isolate them if need be. Telling someone they can't have a gun because they saw a shrink over depression 15 years ago is not the way to go through with this.
Alexzandvar wrote: That point of what I was saying was that I the reason I am not all upset and up in arms about the former SEAL's death is because within my family the sacrifice of death in battle is something that is regarded with respect but is not something to be ultra angry or ultra sad over. It is depressing sure, but if we let everything depressing or angering in our lives get to us we would be naught but emotional wrecks all the time.
Call it grim if you want, I call it recognition that my ancestors died for something worth fighting for and that by debasing ourselves and causing more hatred and anger and death over theirs serves not their memory but to poison it and corrupt it.
And Martian man, if you honestly think me talking about how I respect and honor my ancestors and their sacrifice is "hanging myself with my own words" then let me hang. I don't really mind all your scorn, but don't talk as If I do not regard what my family has sacrificed for this country with pride.
You are beginning to sound like that British butt head who keeps invoking his brother who is a British Soldier as the reason he should be allowed to act like an expert on something he obviously knows nothing about. If you think the close family members of those who died are not angry then that is because they apparently have left you out of their real feelings....
You lose someone you get pissed, really really resentful and angry at the folks back home who are clueless and the politicians who do not care but you keep it in close to those who will understand. I am guessing they think you will not understand and from what you have posted I can see why....
Passing over the very inappropriate remarks about said British poster I would like to tell you I think it's wrong to imply I have no idea what loss is despite as saying earlier, people in my family dying in military service isn't exactly a rare thing.
Going out of the military service death category, I had a friend who sat across me for all of AP English my Junior year of high school, and during my senior year I woke up one day and went to school only to find out she had died the previous night in a horrible car accident.
It sucked like a motherfething chest wound, to know I had interacted with that person on a daily basis, hell, even sought out to share time with them after school and that all of a sudden she was just dead was awful.
I won't tell you how to take loss, and I won't question how you treat your dead, but I will ask if all the bitterness you demonstrate in calling our politicians and folks back home clueless is right, because there is a lot of people who have lost family members to war and those people go on and do things in their life be it politics or just every day citizen things.
I also find the fact that you imply my cousins girlfriend didn't share her feelings with me despite inviting me to the funeral and crying on my shoulder at the reception to be very offensive. Or that my father wasn't being honest when he told me about how my namesake died fighting for this country and how much he respects him for that (As in naming his son after him).
Seriously, real talk, my entire point of all my posts on the subject of soldiers death's were about how using them as a political spring board is wrong. So argue with my point, and stop it with the whole "You don't rage post about how much you hate politicians and clueless people because someone who was close to died so I think your a bad person"
I'm calling total and complete BS on the idea that soldiers take death in stride and its just a part of life. I spent two years in Iraq and I saw soldiers die and I saw how soldiers deal with it. It aint pretty. They feel it and feel it more so than you will probably never know. You don't know what you are talking about and you need to stop talking because people who have been there and dealt with it know you're utterly wrong. Or does your ROTC experience trump real world experience? (also, the oaths they believe you are breaking are in defending the constitution. Specifically the 2nd A.)
For me, an armed citizenry is essential in keeping liberty and freedom. It has nothing to do with hunting and very little to do with self defense. (That's just an added benefit.) As for the guy saying that legal gun ownership in America helps terrorists, no, criminals breaking the laws help terrorists. The laws are already there. Enforce them better and there wouldn't be a problem.
Also, my AK 47 isn't fully automatic, so I guess it's not an assault rifle. Sweet! So I'm safe from the anti-gunners!
I literally just said that I, and my family honor and respect the sacrifice soldiers make. How could we not? My both my uncles, my dad, both my grandfathers, 3 cousins including the two who died, all four of my great grand fathers. I could go on literally all the way back to the very first family member to travel to this land (The same guy who died in the Rev War). So yeah, personally I have dealt with waving good bye to family members and having them not come back. I wasn't there to watch my cousin die on the operating table or inspect the IED that killed the other cousin but I spoke with there comrades, I grew up on Vietnam stories from my dad, I have made it a point in my life to learn about the military and all things involved be it the death and the glory.
So in conclusion no, I don't take soldier's death in stride, you know why? Because to do so would be to marginalize my entire family's history
whembly wrote: Instead of included any sort of mental health checking with background checks...
Why not just fething strengthen the whole field/industry of mental health?
The later is a great idea for many western nations, but it doesn't automatically resolve the former. We could... and this might sound crazy... We could do both.
whembly wrote: Instead of included any sort of mental health checking with background checks...
Why not just fething strengthen the whole field/industry of mental health?
Better diagnosis...
Better treatment...
Use State/Federal fundings for more Mental Health institutions.
The reason why background checks are advocated in relation to a better mental health system is that if your giving a person treatment, but they are still not fit for ownership of a gun they could still go get a gun if the store had no way to check if the person was crazy (or just to lazy to do so).
whembly wrote: Instead of included any sort of mental health checking with background checks...
Why not just fething strengthen the whole field/industry of mental health?
Better diagnosis...
Better treatment...
Use State/Federal fundings for more Mental Health institutions.
The reason why background checks are advocated in relation to a better mental health system is that if your giving a person treatment, but they are still not fit for ownership of a gun they could still go get a gun if the store had no way to check if the person was crazy (or just to lazy to do so).
So... you know, if someone is crazy enough to get any guns... they're crazy enough to get it anywhere. Doesn't matter if Walmart won't sell any to them.
We can expect that if something can happen it probably will happen. Doesn't mean we don't do anything to reduce the probability. People will never stop murdering other people, but we don't do away with laws against such action. There will always be plane accidents, but we regulate the gak out of those things to reduce the frequency.
Maybe not, but at least it isn't automatically a violation of personal privacy.
I don't mind the idea of people with serious mental conditions being prevented from owning firearms, I just think it would be a very dangerous road to travel down.
It also doesn't solve the problem of people using stolen firearms, of which a very large chunk of gun violence is committed with. Criminals are not completely stupid, they aren't going to go and buy a gun legally and then commit a crime with it. They'll buy a stolen one off the street, they're as easily acquired as cheap ciggs at a corner store.
Its also not uncommon for a gun to bounce around between a bunch of criminals. If the weapon is hot they'll hock it to another guy for $50 who in turn will hock it to another guy when he's done with it.
I'm speaking more in terms of a person who is mentally unstable whembly.
All one has to due is look at the sad state of veterans mental healthcare so see that mental instability that is not treated to can lead to tragic ends and that by disallowing those mentally unstable people harmful things we can soften the tragedy or help eliminate it.
LordofHats wrote: We can expect that if something can happen it probably will happen. Doesn't mean we don't do anything to reduce the probability. People will never stop murdering other people, but we don't do away with laws against such action. There will always be plane accidents, but we regulate the gak out of those things to reduce the frequency.
And?
Last I checked it's still illegal to murder someone and nobody is considering changing it.
Mass shootings are very rare occurrences and really do not rack up any significant numbers on the gun violence chart. They just make big news because they are high profile. And again, still illegal last I checked.
Well it's hard to really look at all of the numbers and say how big of an impact it would have, but at the very least The Navy Yard Shooting of last year may have been prevented. A ton of red flags should have gone up with that guy, and the firearm he came in with was legally purchased.
As I said though, it's better to start with making it easier for these people to be getting the help they need, before we start making "lists" of people. "Lists" are never really good, sometimes they are necessary, but they should be limited as much as possible.
Grey Templar wrote: Maybe not, but at least it isn't automatically a violation of personal privacy.
I don't mind the idea of people with serious mental conditions being prevented from owning firearms, I just think it would be a very dangerous road to travel down.
It also doesn't solve the problem of people using stolen firearms, of which a very large chunk of gun violence is committed with. Criminals are not completely stupid, they aren't going to go and buy a gun legally and then commit a crime with it. They'll buy a stolen one off the street, they're as easily acquired as cheap ciggs at a corner store.
Its also not uncommon for a gun to bounce around between a bunch of criminals. If the weapon is hot they'll hock it to another guy for $50 who in turn will hock it to another guy when he's done with it.
The need for a better mental health system with better backround check's lies less in stopping robbery or "crimes involving guns with a purpose" and more in stopping things like sandy hook or Aurora from happening. Or various incidents were extremely unstable people attempt suicide by cop or well, kill their family and then end themselves. The saddest incident Iv seen is were a former SEAL was helping Veterans deal with there mental issues by taking them range shooting, and then one army vet took the weapon and killed the SEAL.
And the road of protecting people from an issue that is causing death is not a dangerous road, its the duty of the government to seek measures to protect its people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Well it's hard to really look at all of the numbers and say how big of an impact it would have, but at the very least The Navy Yard Shooting of last year may have been prevented. A ton of red flags should have gone up with that guy, and the firearm he came in with was legally purchased.
As I said though, it's better to start with making it easier for these people to be getting the help they need, before we start making "lists" of people. "Lists" are never really good, sometimes they are necessary, but they should be limited as much as possible.
The ability for people in authority to make lists to better help address issues is one of the most basic parts of civilization.
For example the census helps the government keep track of population growth!
Just because yes, lists have been used for bad purposes does not mean we should be afraid lists and people who use them.
Ironic isn't it? People say the exact same thing about guns!
The need for a better mental health system with better backround check's lies less in stopping robbery or "crimes involving guns with a purpose" and more in stopping things like sandy hook or Aurora from happening.
You see, here is the rub.
Things like Aurora or Sandy Hook do not happen enough to be worth making sweeping changes over. Hundreds of people are not dying every year to mass shootings.
Also, neither of those incidents would have been stopped by tighter gun restrictions. The one guy killed his mother and stole her guns. There were also the bombs, which would have been more devastating than what the shooting actually ended up being.
If you really want to reduce gun violence, you focus on the "robbery gone wrong" type of crimes. Not the once in a blue moon killing sprees.
Making legislation in reaction to a mass shooting is like switching what army you play in 40k because you got totally stomped in one particular game because your dice rolled really bad. You don't plan for extremes, you plan for the average results.
What your advocating is for any joe schmoe at a counter to know whether or not the guy standing across from him has mental health issues.
Like any Joe Shmoe can go onto the net and find out if someone is a sexual predator? Or if they've ever committed a crime? Or if they were fired from their position for gross negligence? Or the lists of people who can't go near a plane let alone on one?
Those lists you're afraid of? They already exist. The limitation is who has access to them and compiling a list of "don't give a gun" people, is a drop in the water especially since no one has advocated a public list of crazy people. People get paid to find out what other people have or have not done regularly. News flash, the internet exists now. All of this information is obtainable with little effort.
What your advocating is for any joe schmoe at a counter to know whether or not the guy standing across from him has mental health issues.
Like any Joe Shmoe can go onto the net and find out if someone is a sexual predator? Or if they've ever committed a crime? Or if they were fired from their position for gross negligence? Or the lists of people who can't go near a plane let alone on one?
Those lists you're afraid of? They already exist. The limitation is who has access to them and compiling a list of "don't give a gun" people, is a drop in the water especially since no one has advocated a public list of crazy people. People get paid to find out what other people have or have not done regularly. News flash, the internet exists now. All of this information is obtainable with little effort.
And medical privacy is the most sacred of sacreds, and now folks are advocating opening that one up.
djones520 wrote: The Census doesn't keep track of name, social, address, etc... it just counts numbers.
What your advocating is for any joe schmoe at a counter to know whether or not the guy standing across from him has mental health issues.
They are not in any way shape or form equal.
And how would that have stopped something like the Naval Yard Shooter? He had no record of treatment, diagnosis, etc...
Had he instead gotten the help he needed, instead of getting stuck in the VA Beuracracy...
The point of a background check system is not to just tell Joe Schmoe that the guy at the counter is crazy, it's to tell him that he should not sell a fire arm to this mentally unstable individual who could not only be a threat to himself with a firearm, but to others
And yes, as pointed out by me and other earlier investing in a better health system would work alongside this.
Can't blame you for your dislike of the VA's process times, but I hope that your channeling that dislike into strength into helping advocate for better funding and staffing for them! The cuts to the VA recently have been inexcusable.
Grey Templar wrote: Hundreds of people are not dying every year to mass shootings.
There are about 20 mass shootings a year and the average fatalities for a mass shooting is 12. So technically over 200 people every year are killed by mass shootings.
What your advocating is for any joe schmoe at a counter to know whether or not the guy standing across from him has mental health issues.
Like any Joe Shmoe can go onto the net and find out if someone is a sexual predator? Or if they've ever committed a crime? Or if they were fired from their position for gross negligence? Or the lists of people who can't go near a plane let alone on one?
Those lists you're afraid of? They already exist. The limitation is who has access to them and compiling a list of "don't give a gun" people, is a drop in the water especially since no one has advocated a public list of crazy people. People get paid to find out what other people have or have not done regularly. News flash, the internet exists now. All of this information is obtainable with little effort.
And medical privacy is the most sacred of sacreds, and now folks are advocating opening that one up.
Well are not those "folks" our argument is that a system that keeps track of those individuals who suffer from mental health issues will not only help others in prevent him from acquiring something dangerous, but to also help said person receive the proper treatment he or she needs
Like how medical companies have lists of people who can't get a transplant for preexisting conditions or behavior? Or lists of organ donors?
now folks are advocating opening that one up.
No they're not. A background check doesn't even have to specify why someone is denied something to the individual requesting the check. A system can easily be devised where a name is sent in, checked, and a simple 'yes' or 'no' returned and if the person seeking a gun wants to know why they were denied they can do what we already do, call the company that did the check and ask why.
The need for a better mental health system with better backround check's lies less in stopping robbery or "crimes involving guns with a purpose" and more in stopping things like sandy hook or Aurora from happening.
You see, here is the rub.
Things like Aurora or Sandy Hook do not happen enough to be worth making sweeping changes over. Hundreds of people are not dying every year to mass shootings.
Also, neither of those incidents would have been stopped by tighter gun restrictions. The one guy killed his mother and stole her guns. There were also the bombs, which would have been more devastating than what the shooting actually ended up being.
If you really want to reduce gun violence, you focus on the "robbery gone wrong" type of crimes. Not the once in a blue moon killing sprees.
Making legislation in reaction to a mass shooting is like switching what army you play in 40k because you got totally stomped in one particular game because your dice rolled really bad. You don't plan for extremes, you plan for the average results.
You do understand that we are not advocating tighter gun restrictions we are advocating for a system with those who have mental issues cannot acquire dangerous things they can use to harms others and themselves.
So unless you have some mental issue, your ability to own and operate a fire arm will no be infringed upon.
Not necessarily a problem of forcing medication. So many people are never diagnosed, mis-diagnosed, ineffectively treated, not monitored like they should be. Medical health care in the US is kind of messed up these days and no one cares because 'they're crazy.'
And as to forcing medication, should we really be allowing schizophrenics to wander urban streets in a constant psychosis because they don't want to be treated? They're actively hurting themselves.
You do understand that we are not advocating tighter gun restrictions we are advocating for a system with those who have mental issues cannot acquire dangerous things they can use to harms others and themselves.
So unless you have some mental issue, your ability to own and operate a fire arm will no be infringed upon.
so, you're advocating taking guns away from basically every veteran who ever deployed??? EVERY Vet that I know, myself included put up all kinds of red flags regarding mental health, PTSD, etc. and since we all know how our Glorious Leaders like to write laws, it would be too heavy handed, and anyone who puts up a flag will have to be seen, and probably get some other marks against them in regards to acquiring something that is their right.
LordofHats wrote: Not necessarily a problem of forcing medication. So many people are never diagnosed, mis-diagnosed, ineffectively treated, not monitored like they should be. Medical health care in the US is kind of messed up these days and no one cares because 'they're crazy.'
And these situations happen because you can't force a previously non-violent person to be diagnosed, mis-diagnosed, treated, or monitored. Especially if they're over 18.
I'm all about improved mental health services. But as the adage goes, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."
As such, any "mental health" restrictions put in place for firearm ownership would be, for the most part, fruitless. Our present restrictions do, however, exclude felons from attaining firearms legally. Those restrictions still can't prevent felons from acquiring them illegally.
cincydooley wrote: And you propose forcing these people to be evaluated by a mental health professional how?
Well already there are plenty of people we know have mental issues and want treatment that cannot get it (or are waiting for it) such as veterans. So thats a group of people already we can help get into a system for getting them aid and ensuring there safety.
Although your question on it's face is odd, since society naturally pushes people who are mentally unwell to the fringe, and in the fringe they are easier to find or are motivated by a desire to become able to be part of the rest of society by getting treatment. Parents often get their kids help if they need it, and if parent ignores a obvious mental problem that would cause their child to harm others they would be tried for child abuse (This is directly addressing Adam Lanza's mom's unwillingness to get him help)
Also: do you know how many homeless people are such because of mental illness? Often times the police are puzzled on how to deal with these individuals since they have noone to hand them off to, which ties into the point about refining our healthcare system for mental patients.
You touch on one of the reasons why the solution isn't simple, but what solution to a large problem ever is?
And as to forcing medication, should we really be allowing schizophrenics to wander urban streets in a constant psychosis because they don't want to be treated? They're actively hurting themselves.
If they're thusfar non-violent and non-criminal, absolutely.
Grey Templar wrote: Hundreds of people are not dying every year to mass shootings.
There are about 20 mass shootings a year and the average fatalities for a mass shooting is 12. So technically over 200 people every year are killed by mass shootings.
That doesn't really qualify for my "hundreds" statement. You'd need 600, 800, a thousand, to really qualify.
And that is still a very VERY tiny portion of the population.
EVERY Vet that I know, myself included put up all kinds of red flags regarding mental health, PTSD
That's kind of what I'm talking about. PTSD like many conditions carries a stigma in complete ignorance of the reality of the condition. Many vets have very mild cases of PTSD that are ignored, or aren't ignored and are then treated like they're off the rocker.
My dad doesn't like sudden loud noises, he refuses to sit with his back to a room, and I've seen him actively avoid parking near vans or trucks or even driving past them in parking lots. He wasn't diagnosed with anything, and he's not a threat to anyone, even if he could use a little help dealing with these phobias he's acquired. But if he got labeled with PTSD suddenly, people would treat him differently, because we aren't very well educated about mental health in the US and we actively ignore understanding it.
And these situations happen because you can't force a previously non-violent person to be diagnosed, mis-diagnosed, treated, or monitored. Especially if they're over 18.
So we put the power of deciding if someone is okay in the hands of someone who can't even remember their own name from the voices in their head? i think someone who is not mentally competent should have the last say in how their condition is treated.
cincydooley wrote: And you propose forcing these people to be evaluated by a mental health professional how?
Well already there are plenty of people we know have mental issues and want treatment that cannot get it (or are waiting for it) such as veterans. So thats a group of people already we can help get into a system for getting them aid and ensuring there safety.
Although your question on it's face is odd, since society naturally pushes people who are mentally unwell to the fringe, and in the fringe they are easier to find or are motivated by a desire to become able to be part of the rest of society by getting treatment. Parents often get their kids help if they need it, and if parent ignores a obvious mental problem that would cause their child to harm others they would be tried for child abuse (This is directly addressing Adam Lanza's mom's unwillingness to get him help)
Also: do you know how many homeless people are such because of mental illness? Often times the police are puzzled on how to deal with these individuals since they have noone to hand them off to, which ties into the point about refining our healthcare system for mental patients.
You touch on one of the reasons why the solution isn't simple, but what solution to a large problem ever is?
I know in your wide-eyed, college freshman naivety you're trying really hard to put some solid arguments together, but the fact remains that we can't force treatment on non-violent people. Can't do it, save for some very specific situations, all which require previous incarceration or hospitalization.
Grey Templar wrote: Hundreds of people are not dying every year to mass shootings.
There are about 20 mass shootings a year and the average fatalities for a mass shooting is 12. So technically over 200 people every year are killed by mass shootings.
That doesn't really qualify for my "hundreds" statement. You'd need 600, 800, a thousand, to really qualify.
And that is still a very VERY tiny portion of the population.
Your moving the goal posts. Using this logic we should do nothing to combat terrorism because it kills fewer than even 200 Americans a year.
Anything that kills Americans is bad, or should we tell the parents who lost there kids in the sandy hook shooting that their kids death's are not worth doing anything about?
What do we tell the family's who lost loved ones in tragic but rare events? That their family member is no less important just because they died to something that kills less people each year and that it is the governments duty to seek ways to prevent tragedy from striking like this in the future.
And for the record if we put just as much effort into combating mass shootings are we do terrorism we would have lot less mass shootings.
Grey Templar wrote: Hundreds of people are not dying every year to mass shootings.
There are about 20 mass shootings a year and the average fatalities for a mass shooting is 12. So technically over 200 people every year are killed by mass shootings.
That doesn't really qualify for my "hundreds" statement. You'd need 600, 800, a thousand, to really qualify.
And that is still a very VERY tiny portion of the population.
According to the FBI, between 2006 and 2013 there were 900 mass shooting deaths. Averages out to 128 a year. (Less then 100 in 2012). So roughly 1% of deaths were due to Mass Shootings.
Grey Templar wrote: Hundreds of people are not dying every year to mass shootings.
There are about 20 mass shootings a year and the average fatalities for a mass shooting is 12. So technically over 200 people every year are killed by mass shootings.
That doesn't really qualify for my "hundreds" statement. You'd need 600, 800, a thousand, to really qualify.
And that is still a very VERY tiny portion of the population.
Your moving the goal posts. Using this logic we should do nothing to combat terrorism because it kills fewer than even 200 Americans a year.
Anything that kills Americans is bad, or should we tell the parents who lost there kids in the sandy hook shooting that their kids death's are not worth doing anything about?
What do we tell the family's who lost loved ones in tragic but rare events? That their family member is no less important just because they died to something that kills less people each year and that it is the governments duty to seek ways to prevent tragedy from striking like this in the future.
And for the record if we put just as much effort into combating mass shootings are we do terrorism we would have lot less mass shootings.
I think what he is saying is that instead of spending all this time, effort, legislation, money, etc... on something that makes up 1% of the problem, why don't we spend it on things like gang shootings that make up 80% of gun homocides a year. That's where you will see the real impacts.
cincydooley wrote: And you propose forcing these people to be evaluated by a mental health professional how?
Well already there are plenty of people we know have mental issues and want treatment that cannot get it (or are waiting for it) such as veterans. So thats a group of people already we can help get into a system for getting them aid and ensuring there safety.
Although your question on it's face is odd, since society naturally pushes people who are mentally unwell to the fringe, and in the fringe they are easier to find or are motivated by a desire to become able to be part of the rest of society by getting treatment. Parents often get their kids help if they need it, and if parent ignores a obvious mental problem that would cause their child to harm others they would be tried for child abuse (This is directly addressing Adam Lanza's mom's unwillingness to get him help)
Also: do you know how many homeless people are such because of mental illness? Often times the police are puzzled on how to deal with these individuals since they have noone to hand them off to, which ties into the point about refining our healthcare system for mental patients.
You touch on one of the reasons why the solution isn't simple, but what solution to a large problem ever is?
I know in your wide-eyed, college freshman naivety you're trying really hard to put some solid arguments together, but the fact remains that we can't force treatment on non-violent people. Can't do it, save for some very specific situations, all which require previous incarceration or hospitalization.
But we should have laws that force people who might hurt others to get treatment.
Yes it sounds bad, but what do we tell the family's who watched a persons refusal to get treatment destroy their life? I just don't see how you justify letting crazy people just do what ever with the justification that because it's mental health the person may ride scot free and go on to harm other's because getting them treatment for a crippling issue is somehow "immoral"
But we should have laws that force people who might hurt others to get treatment.
Yes it sounds bad, but what do we tell the family's who watched a persons refusal to get treatment destroy their life? I just don't see how you justify letting crazy people just do what ever with the justification that because it's mental health the person may ride scot free and go on to harm other's because getting them treatment for a crippling issue is somehow "immoral"
And we do if they have a history of violence, both against themselves or against others. But not until then.
This isn't a Philp K Dick novel. We can't predict crime. Not all schizophrenics commit violent acts. Are they more likely? Maybe more so than your average person. But that doesn't mean we can or should force them to see a mental health professional. Black males are statistically more likely to be violent with guns than other races; should we make it harder, therefore, for black males to get firearms even If they have no criminal history? Of course not.
djones520 wrote: Well you were the one who said it's part and parcel with our job, so why should it be anything special.
The assertion military sacrifice is no less important because of the inevitability (or commonality of it) of it is part of what I was saying for about half this thread.
I also asserted that it was "part" of the job as it goes was to make the point that soldiers willingly give their lives for what they believe in, and that using their death as a stepping stone on your political ladder is not okay as you are twisting the memory of that person with unnecessary political rhetoric.
Not to mention the fact why I said I hold high regard for dead soldier's is because the are more than a few who share my last name....
No guns to Crazies ,every time this subject comes up it forces me to post.
Approximately 20% of the population undergoes a breakdown at some point in their life , coupled with roughly 5% of people who have an ongoing illness. People here are talking like Crazies and non-crazies are in two clearly defined groups , they aren't and never will be. I'm all for increasing mental health support but just one action will not lower incidents , it will be a combined result of many actions .
Forcing people to get treatment is generally counter productive as it feeds the patients developed or nascent paranoia , or the psycho active drugs change the users personality so much that they don't wish to take them (I cannot imagine having a completely different headspace / personality foisted on me by drugs , it would be very strange). Mental health issues are inceadibly murky and never think someone who has a mental illness gets a free ride anywhere.
Always remember the line between you and the Crazies is one breakdown.
carlos13th wrote: I hate misinformed reactionary law no matter what the subject matter. I am not sure if I would go as far to say I am anti gun but I am not pro gun either. I am glad guns are illegal in the UK but that doesn't mean I think the same thing would work for America.
Longer wait times, limit on Magazine size and compressive background checks are all things I personally would consider reasonable laws. Others more knowledgable may disagree and I would be happy to hear their reasons.
Laws by people who do not understand what they are legislating and are too lazy to do the research are ridiculous. Especially laws that ban things because they look scary.
I think there are plenty of morons on both sides of the gun control debate. Gun control laws should be about keeping people safe and reducing harm not about scoring political points, hell all laws should be about that. Its a shame that working together seems to be an alien concept in politics.
Also did a poster from the UK really say the police can come into his house uninvited any time without his permission? Because warrants are a thing in the UK too, I am not a lawyer but pretty sure the police are not allowed to do that.
Well, I'll address one of your "reasonable" laws. Take a look back at a picture on the first page. That'll show you how well magazine restrictions work. I could also post tons of video's that show people proving that smaller magazines in no way mitigates a firearms ability to sling led.
Yeah I saw that. Pretty crazy invention.
It would require them to reload slightly more often which may help somewhat in reacting . I can understand that the difference made by the smaller magazines may be negligible to the point where the enforcement of said law is useless.
I still think if people are afraid of more mass murders taking place money would be far better spent in mental health care than gun control.
I think both would be the way to do it. Mental health spending is fine but you are always going to get the spree killers who appears "normal" before they go human hunting.
djones520 wrote: The Census doesn't keep track of name, social, address, etc... it just counts numbers.
What your advocating is for any joe schmoe at a counter to know whether or not the guy standing across from him has mental health issues.
They are not in any way shape or form equal.
And how would that have stopped something like the Naval Yard Shooter? He had no record of treatment, diagnosis, etc...
Had he instead gotten the help he needed, instead of getting stuck in the VA Beuracracy...
Could they not have a system where the guy in the counter sends of the application and just gets back an approved on not approved notice back. They dont need to give shop owners details.
Thats before we get into the matter of what problems do and don't allow someone to own a gun, and who decides that based on what criteria.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bullockist wrote: No guns to Crazies ,every time this subject comes up it forces me to post.
Approximately 20% of the population undergoes a breakdown at some point in their life , coupled with roughly 5% of people who have an ongoing illness. People here are talking like Crazies and non-crazies are in two clearly defined groups , they aren't and never will be. I'm all for increasing mental health support but just one action will not lower incidents , it will be a combined result of many actions .
Forcing people to get treatment is generally counter productive as it feeds the patients developed or nascent paranoia , or the psycho active drugs change the users personality so much that they don't wish to take them (I cannot imagine having a completely different headspace / personality foisted on me by drugs , it would be very strange). Mental health issues are inceadibly murky and never think someone who has a mental illness gets a free ride anywhere.
Always remember the line between you and the Crazies is one breakdown.
This is a very good point and one worth keeping in mind. Metal health issues are hugely misunderstood, underfunded.
I agree with you comments of forcing treatment too, I understand if someone is violent it may be needed but forcing treatment on someone who is non violent but troubled is a great way to ensure they never trust a medical professional again. I know I personally would be scared to death if I was forced into a mental hospital and treatment was forced upon me.
Grey Templar wrote: It also doesn't solve the problem of people using stolen firearms, of which a very large chunk of gun violence is committed with. Criminals are not completely stupid, they aren't going to go and buy a gun legally and then commit a crime with it. They'll buy a stolen one off the street, they're as easily acquired as cheap ciggs at a corner store.
Large number of gun murders are committed without any premeditation. You're right that it wouldn't reduce the numbers of crimes in which the gun was stolen (or purchased as a gun stolen by some other person), but it might have an effect on the number of murders in which a legally owned firearm was used in a spur of the moment situation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: If you really want to reduce gun violence, you focus on the "robbery gone wrong" type of crimes. Not the once in a blue moon killing sprees.
Agreed, to a point. Murders committed in the act of another crime kill more people than spree killing by a couple of orders of magnitude, but they in turn are only a fraction of the total murder rate. In fact, going by the figures in the table below, getting killed because someone is committing a crime is almost half as likely as getting killed in an argument (1,923 murders from a felony, vs 3,215 from 'other arguments').
cincydooley wrote: And you propose forcing these people to be evaluated by a mental health professional how?
While I agree that forced treatment without a crime is a dangerous precedent, the number of people who have little or no treatment because they refuse it is very rare. It is far more common for such people to be given inadequate treatment because of a lack of resources in the mental health system. Too often people drop out of the system while on a waiting list, or are pushed out of care too soon because a bed is needed for another patient.
But murders like that tend to be committed with whatever is laying around.
If a gun wasn't to hand they'd just have used a knife or any heavy object that was nearby.
Those also are not always going to be committed by someone who is mentally unstable, just someone who got too angry at that exact moment. Anybody could snap like that with no warning, certainly nothing a mental screening would catch in any appreciable numbers.
Thing is if you have a gun and want to kill me I am fethed.
If you have a knife I may be able to run.
If you have an heavy object I might be able disarm you.
I cant outrun bullets, I cant close the distance and redirect the line of fire before you can squeeze a trigger. Unless you stand really close and I am very very lucky.
Anyone thought of those with PTSD? Be it from OIF/OEF, possible from Bosnia/Kosovo, Somalia, 1st Gulf War, Grenada, Panama, Korean War, Vietnam, and WWII vets?
Jihadin wrote: Anyone thought of those with PTSD? Be it from OIF/OEF, possible from Bosnia/Kosovo, Somalia, 1st Gulf War, Grenada, Panama, Korean War, Vietnam, and WWII vets?
carlos13th wrote: Yeah but you have a chance of out running melee weapons. You have no chance of out running a gun.
Only if you run in a straight line...
What do you suggest instead? Zig Zagging? I wouldn't wanna be the one to test your theory.
Well... if the bad guys has a fully automatic Grizzly Bear chasing you downhill... zig zagging is the way to go as the Bear can't turn like that down hill. Their mass would roll down hill...
Grey Templar wrote: But murders like that tend to be committed with whatever is laying around.
If a gun wasn't to hand they'd just have used a knife or any heavy object that was nearby.
When you have a tool that makes a task easier, you are more likely to use that tool. This applies to murder just as much as it applies to DIY letter boxes.
And think about it, and just look at the link I posted above. Taking out the murders committed in the act of another felony (and a proportionate amount of the murders with an unknown motive), and we're looking at 9,990 murders. That's more than double the murder rate here in Australia, more than four times the rate in the UK.
All the other factors that affect the murder rate - education, poverty, measures of effective policing etc are more or less on par. And it just doesn't make sense to declare the people of the US are just somehow a more murderous country, a people who'd be murdering each other at a rate far in advance of other developed countries even if all they had to do it with was rocks and blunt knives.
At some point you have to look at the saturation of all those tools that make killing quite a bit easier, and make the fairly direct conclusion that when you make something easier, people tend to do it more.
Those also are not always going to be committed by someone who is mentally unstable, just someone who got too angry at that exact moment. Anybody could snap like that with no warning, certainly nothing a mental screening would catch in any appreciable numbers.
I agree that such murders are committed by people with no mental issues, but I think you're wrong in claiming these murders are committed as a snap with no warning. There is almost always a long cycle of incidents before the murder, increasingly heated arguments, incidents of actual violence etc. Often with the police called, though obviously not always with charges being followed through on.
Whether or not a system could be established to take guns away from people identified in those situations, or even to get people in those situations to agree to temporarily give up their firearms, well it'd be interesting to see it attempted. Of course, there's also a hell of a lot of scope there to begin reducing the murder rate (early identification of downward spirals etc) without even looking at guns, but no-one looks at any of that because unfortunately most people are still massively in denial about what constitutes most murders.
I agree that such murders are committed by people with no mental issues, but I think you're wrong in claiming these murders are committed as a snap with no warning. There is almost always a long cycle of incidents before the murder, increasingly heated arguments, incidents of actual violence etc. Often with the police called, though obviously not always with charges being followed through on.
Its also a bit harsh to say that anyone who has had a series of incidences like that, which are really pretty minor, should be put on a mental watch list and denied their 2nd amendment right because they might become killers.
That's practically convicting them of a crime with no trial, the punishment of which is the removal of a constitutional right.
Someone who can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality as a normal state of affairs, should probably not be allowed to own a firearm (or a nasty history of going off their meds and making poor decisions, depending). Someone with a manageable condition that poses no great risk to themselves or anyone else, isn't the kind of person who need to be denied such a thing and isn't really who people are talking about when they bring up the issue.
sebster wrote: [
And think about it, and just look at the link I posted above. Taking out the murders committed in the act of another felony (and a proportionate amount of the murders with an unknown motive), and we're looking at 9,990 murders. That's more than double the murder rate here in Australia, more than four times the rate in the UK.
.
How many murders are we looking at If we remove the gang related ones?
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but I think in 2011 something like 9000 of the 11,000 total gun murders were gang related.
Seaward wrote: Would you mind citing your source for that?
That murders aren't committed out of the blue, but are generally preceded by an escalating cycle of violence? You really want a source for that?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Its also a bit harsh to say that anyone who has had a series of incidences like that, which are really pretty minor, should be put on a mental watch list and denied their 2nd amendment right because they might become killers.
That's practically convicting them of a crime with no trial, the punishment of which is the removal of a constitutional right.
Only if one assumes that on identifying such a problem, the only response must include the state forcing itself in to the situation. Instead of, you know, offering help, telling people 'hey, it's clear you're spiralling here, how about we provide a service to help work you through these issues'.
Note, by the way, that this stuff gets talked about by criminologists all the time. The issue isn't with the range of intervention methods, which are known to be effective even when non-mandatory (in fact, they are much more effective when non-mandatory). This is because the vast majority of people aren't, in fact, complete fething idiots who want to piss their lives away by murdering someone.
The problem is with actually identifying the people in this spirals while they are happening. The police are a reactive service and for obvious reasons don't spend their time looking at series of incidents and making predictions, and many other important indicators are included in other systems (court records etc). This information can be accumulated and used to good effect, but the time delay means the final event has already happened.
sebster wrote: That murders aren't committed out of the blue, but are generally preceded by an escalating cycle of violence? You really want a source for that?
I'd like a source for this, yes:
There is almost always a long cycle of incidents before the murder, increasingly heated arguments, incidents of actual violence etc. Often with the police called, though obviously not always with charges being followed through on.
cincydooley wrote: How many murders are we looking at If we remove the gang related ones?
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but I think in 2011 something like 9000 of the 11,000 total gun murders were gang related.
In 2010, of the total 12,996 murders, the reason was known in 8,340 instances. Of those, just 849 or 10.2% were gang related. You can add the total number of murders that were committed in the act of a crime (drugs, burglary, mugging, rape, stolen car etc) of 1,923 to get a total number of murders that can be attached to any kind of crime of 2,772, or 33.2%. And that leaves you with 5,568 murders, or 66.8% of murders that were committed because of disputes over property, romance, and all sorts of other nonsense.
And from that, you can conclude, that no, the issue most certainly isn't a gang problem, in fact only a minority is related to crime at all.
There is almost always a long cycle of incidents before the murder, increasingly heated arguments, incidents of actual violence etc. Often with the police called, though obviously not always with charges being followed through on.
Uh, okay. I mean, I'm just repeating what I've told by a couple of people who do this for a living, and while I've asked them to clarify plenty that they've told me, I never asked about this, because, you know, it seemed kind of obvious. I mean, are you actually doubting that most murders don't just come out of the blue?
I would think the issues lies more in that people in this thread seem to think that a majority of gun related crime being done by gangs is a totally okay thing and that we should just twiddle away our lives safe in the knowledge that political passiveness in response to the ever growing gang issues in this country will just totally not cause a problem later on.
Regardless of what percentage of gun deaths are due to gang violence, there still fething deaths due to gun violence. Is a man who dies to a common act of terrorism such as suicide bombing any less of a victim of terrorism than someone who died in 9/11?
Alexzandvar wrote: I would think the issues lies more in that people in this thread seem to think that a majority of gun related crime being done by gangs is a totally okay thing and that we should just twiddle away our lives safe in the knowledge that political passiveness in response to the ever growing gang issues in this country will just totally not cause a problem later on.
Regardless of what percentage of gun deaths are due to gang violence, there still fething deaths due to gun violence. Is a man who dies to a common act of terrorism such as suicide bombing any less of a victim of terrorism than someone who died in 9/11?
Current gun laws don't stop gang violence. More restrictive laws pulling guns away from folks currently allowed to have them or making it harder for these folks to obtain them will also not stop gang violence. I think that is all I've notice folks say in this thread. Bluntly, more gun laws does not address gang violence.
As for other gun deaths, I'll go down that old rabbit hole that folks get sick of. Is your goal to prevent deaths? If so, does the tool/cause of the death matter? If so, should you not focus limited resources on the tools/causes which are responsible for the most deaths?
If so, guns should not be the target of your ire.
Ban swimming pools and bathtubs!
And of course, as someone who has sworn to uphold and protect the constitution as part of your ROTC contracting, you may want to look at what the constitutional role of the federal gov't is in all this. A lot of what you are advocating is maybe within the realm of state and county governments, but well outside of what the feds should be involved in.
Alexzandvar wrote: I would think the issues lies more in that people in this thread seem to think that a majority of gun related crime being done by gangs is a totally okay thing and that we should just twiddle away our lives safe in the knowledge that political passiveness in response to the ever growing gang issues in this country will just totally not cause a problem later on.
Regardless of what percentage of gun deaths are due to gang violence, there still fething deaths due to gun violence. Is a man who dies to a common act of terrorism such as suicide bombing any less of a victim of terrorism than someone who died in 9/11?
Current gun laws don't stop gang violence. More restrictive laws pulling guns away from folks currently allowed to have them or making it harder for these folks to obtain them will also not stop gang violence. I think that is all I've notice folks say in this thread. Bluntly, more gun laws does not address gang violence.
As for other gun deaths, I'll go down that old rabbit hole that folks get sick of. Is your goal to prevent deaths? If so, does the tool/cause of the death matter? If so, should you not focus limited resources on the tools/causes which are responsible for the most deaths?
If so, guns should not be the target of your ire.
Ban swimming pools and bathtubs!
We focus trillions on fighting terrorism and it kills less American's each year than sharks.
EDIT: Me and many others have talked about ways to help stop gun violence outside of just "Not let people get guns" several times in this thread.
Alexzandvar wrote: I would think the issues lies more in that people in this thread seem to think that a majority of gun related crime being done by gangs is a totally okay thing and that we should just twiddle away our lives safe in the knowledge that political passiveness in response to the ever growing gang issues in this country will just totally not cause a problem later on.
Gang violence is not OK, but thus far, there has been no way to really get rid of it... Can't get rid of guns, because the gangs will still have them. Probably the best thing to do would be to legalize many of their money makers.... namely prostitution, gambling (across the country, not just on Reservations and Nevada), and various drugs.
Of course, there are already Outreach programs, which earlier in the thread you were so high on.... Those don't or haven't really done anything to help stem the "gang problem"
I do think there's something to be said about the political/societal element that kind of sits back and says, "well let the animals (gangs) kill themselves, so long as they don't bother us" and would rather deal with other issues first.
We focus trillions on fighting terrorism and it kills less American's each year than sharks.
And surprisingly, one of the things the constitution allows the fed gov't to do is fund and maintain a military. If your congress critters want to fund the use of that military against terrorists, so be it. If we don't like that we need to vote them out. Fighting sharks and domestic gangs isn't in the fed mandate.
EDIT: Me and many others have talked about ways to help stop gun violence outside of just "Not let people get guns" several times in this thread.
Yep, your answers continue to go towards fed gov't involvement, which should not be the answer at all. Just as the crap ton of money spent on the War On Drugs and the War On Poverty have stopped neither, you will find a federal War On Gang Violence will result in a crap ton of tax dollars spent, bureaucracies built, and gang violence not stopped.
One thing pro gun control people don't understand about pro 2nd A people that 2nd A people are reluctant to budge an inch because its not going to stop with "just one more law." Once that law is in place, a new bill will be proposed and then its another slice taken away.
Here's a parable.
Say you were given a cake. Then someone comes along and says "Hey, you have too much cake, that's unreasonable. Give me a slice."
"Okay, sure. Here you go."
A little while later the same guy comes back.
"You still have way too much cake. Give me a slice."
"Alright, but that's your last one."
"Of course. I won't ask for another."
Then later the same guy comes back.
"I want half your cake."
"Half my cake? Are you crazy? Feth no."
"Alright, we'll compromise. Give me a quarter."
"That's not compromise, that's just you taking."
"Now you're just being unreasonable and refuse to compromise."
For the pro gun control crowd, yes, there are many politicians that want to ban all guns and confiscate them. You say, "yeah, but they're on the extreme side. That will NEVER happen." But that is their goal and they aim to do it piece by piece. You say "But just a little reasonable legislation is a good thing!" I say "No, it isn't when it does nothing but punish law abiding people and does nothing to stop the problem it was supposed to stop." If you want to tread on my Constitutional rights, you're going to need a much better excuse. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. even the President is held to it. Yes, it can and does change, but that does not lessen its importance to the American system of government.
Take for example: How would you react if the government said you had to register and take a test before you could exercise your free speech? Or is that somehow different and special?
If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a glass of milk.
And, just because I haven't said it in this thread yet: the anti-gun crowd operates in exactly the same way as the anti-abortion crowd. We all know the goal of both movements is a complete ban, but we also know a complete ban would be unconstitutional. So, they do their best to chip away with incrementally tougher and tougher laws, with the goal being a ban in all but name.
How do you feel about an expanding back rounds check system with a national data base that links up with mental health data bases?
I ask because, well, now that Obama is doing what most president's do (republican or democrat) when faced with an obstructive congress: use executive orders, so stuff like this will happen.
I'm for it, if done prudently.
You'll find his executive action will do nothing. It is blocked at the state level by the hippy tree huggers and the ACLU.
Do yo9u know if you join the ACLU they will harass you for money and your caller ID will say "Washington DC." Its disconcerting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Instead of included any sort of mental health checking with background checks...
Why not just fething strengthen the whole field/industry of mental health?
Better diagnosis...
Better treatment...
Use State/Federal fundings for more Mental Health institutions.
MWHistorian wrote: One thing pro gun control people don't understand about pro 2nd A people that 2nd A people are reluctant to budge an inch because its not going to stop with "just one more law." Once that law is in place, a new bill will be proposed and then its another slice taken away.
Here's a parable.
Say you were given a cake. Then someone comes along and says "Hey, you have too much cake, that's unreasonable. Give me a slice."
"Okay, sure. Here you go."
A little while later the same guy comes back.
"You still have way too much cake. Give me a slice."
"Alright, but that's your last one."
"Of course. I won't ask for another."
Then later the same guy comes back.
"I want half your cake."
"Half my cake? Are you crazy? Feth no."
"Alright, we'll compromise. Give me a quarter."
"That's not compromise, that's just you taking."
"Now you're just being unreasonable and refuse to compromise."
For the pro gun control crowd, yes, there are many politicians that want to ban all guns and confiscate them. You say, "yeah, but they're on the extreme side. That will NEVER happen." But that is their goal and they aim to do it piece by piece. You say "But just a little reasonable legislation is a good thing!" I say "No, it isn't when it does nothing but punish law abiding people and does nothing to stop the problem it was supposed to stop." If you want to tread on my Constitutional rights, you're going to need a much better excuse. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. even the President is held to it. Yes, it can and does change, but that does not lessen its importance to the American system of government.
Take for example: How would you react if the government said you had to register and take a test before you could exercise your free speech? Or is that somehow different and special?
It's impossible to assert that the answer to stopping (or helping prevent) gun violence is less federal intervention since we have not seen any real action by the Fed in regards to guns since the AWB in the Clinton era.
The "states" have shown that the reason the Fed does what it does time in and time out in things outside "guns" is because often states will just go hog wild with out considering what might happen to others state as a consequence. To say nothing of that idiot Rick Perry cutting the Texa's fire department budgets as parts of the state were literally on fire.
I'm not claiming we will find a miracle solution to the issue of gun violence, but I would like to think people on both sides of the isle could work togeather on it rather than just having this conversation.
D: I want to discuss a better back round check system and more invesment in mental health
R: No, slippery slope.
D: It has to be addressed.
R: No
I: Alright well what about laws mandating better fire arm training for carriers and say better laws to hold those who do not secure there fire arms responsibly accountable.
R: No, slippery slope, one day it's having to prove you can stop you kids from getting ahold of guns the next I'm in a gulag serving ultra communist satan president
You see why this is frustrating? Many of you keep shooting down possible solutions or things to help (Sometimes for silly reason's such as the slippery slope one) and refuse to provide any solution of your own.
Rotary wrote: I don't want to see our gun freedoms leeched away because i believe the end goal is to remove all fire arms from the street. Granted that would be in the far distant future but that is the direction I believe it is headed.
One day while I was on duty an intruder broke into our house and chased my wife who was carrying our six month old up the stairs with a steak knife. She barricaded the door with the baby crib and after a few moments he was able to start breaking through it, the only thing that saved my family was the fact that we keep a loaded .40 in a lock box in the bedroom. I was able to make it from my station home before pd was able to get a responding unit. I know the media focuses on all of the negative shootings that happen but there are equally as many examples of when guns are used for good things as well.
I'm glad your wife and son were ok after. That reminds me of this;
Alexzandvar wrote: I think it's fine and proper to own a gun for self defense, but I do also believe that suggesting gun proliferation is just as insane as banning guns.
We need better standards and funding for our police departments, once again something many states have failed spectacularly in doing.
Many county and municipality police departments are fielding armored cars and swat teams. How much more funding do you thing they need? Has the vast expenditure of dollars to date had an effect in line with the resources spent? What makes you think MOAR is the answer?
Alexzandvar wrote: I think it's fine and proper to own a gun for self defense, but I do also believe that suggesting gun proliferation is just as insane as banning guns.
We need better standards and funding for our police departments, once again something many states have failed spectacularly in doing.
Many county and municipality police departments are fielding armored cars and swat teams. How much more funding do you thing they need? Has the vast expenditure of dollars to date had an effect in line with the resources spent? What makes you think MOAR is the answer?
He really ought to pull his head out and up and take a peek around at reality...
Alexzandvar wrote: I think it's fine and proper to own a gun for self defense, but I do also believe that suggesting gun proliferation is just as insane as banning guns.
We need better standards and funding for our police departments, once again something many states have failed spectacularly in doing.
Many county and municipality police departments are fielding armored cars and swat teams. How much more funding do you thing they need? Has the vast expenditure of dollars to date had an effect in line with the resources spent? What makes you think MOAR is the answer?
He really ought to pull his head out and up and take a peek around at reality...
Considering your posting history, that's rather rich.
A lot of municipalities don't have enough money, and most don't have it in the right places (that money spent on an armored transport could probably have been better spent elsewhere, especially if you're some sheriff out in the boondocks).
A bigger problem is that people are antagonistic with the cops and the cops are antagonistic with the people. There isn't enough respect or appreciation flowing in either direction which is a culturual and social problem in the US. Doesn't help that cops tend to only get news service when the feth up (which in some places is way too often *glares at NYC*), and people love comparing them to nazis.
carlos13th wrote: Thing is if you have a gun and want to kill me I am fethed.
If you have a knife I may be able to run.
If you have an heavy object I might be able disarm you.
I cant outrun bullets, I cant close the distance and redirect the line of fire before you can squeeze a trigger. Unless you stand really close and I am very very lucky.
Actually, if you are 21 feet or closer, you can close the distance between you and an attacker before they can pull their firearm from it's holster. It's known as the reactionary gap. Also, in high stress situations, studies have shown that if an individual is talking, when combined with said stress, it is very difficult to pull a trigger.
Also, generally people that use guns to commit crimes are expecting you to submit, not charge them. If you can find cover (not concealment), great. Often times, though, your best option for survival is to fight.
Not sure about other states, but in Florida we have the Marchman Act, which allows a family member to (through the court) to force another to be psychologically evaluated, and detained in a treatment facility if deemed necessary by the evaluation.
Law enforcement has the same option, it's just known as the Baker Act.
In both cases, there does not have to be a history of violence, just a well founded suspicion that the individual in question may harm themselves or another.
Alexzandvar wrote: I think it's fine and proper to own a gun for self defense, but I do also believe that suggesting gun proliferation is just as insane as banning guns.
We need better standards and funding for our police departments, once again something many states have failed spectacularly in doing.
You do a hell of a lot of talking for someone who clearly hasn't done enough listening in his 18 years.
Police departments are getting fething MRAPs, and yet cops in NY can't even be trusted with handguns as they seem to have a better track record of shooting bystanders and innocent people than criminals. You really want to throw more weaponry at people who are, at best, trained to mediocrity with handguns?
MWHistorian wrote: One thing pro gun control people don't understand about pro 2nd A people that 2nd A people are reluctant to budge an inch because its not going to stop with "just one more law." Once that law is in place, a new bill will be proposed and then its another slice taken away.
Here's a parable.
Say you were given a cake. Then someone comes along and says "Hey, you have too much cake, that's unreasonable. Give me a slice."
"Okay, sure. Here you go."
A little while later the same guy comes back.
"You still have way too much cake. Give me a slice."
"Alright, but that's your last one."
"Of course. I won't ask for another."
Then later the same guy comes back.
"I want half your cake."
"Half my cake? Are you crazy? Feth no."
"Alright, we'll compromise. Give me a quarter."
"That's not compromise, that's just you taking."
"Now you're just being unreasonable and refuse to compromise."
For the pro gun control crowd, yes, there are many politicians that want to ban all guns and confiscate them. You say, "yeah, but they're on the extreme side. That will NEVER happen." But that is their goal and they aim to do it piece by piece. You say "But just a little reasonable legislation is a good thing!" I say "No, it isn't when it does nothing but punish law abiding people and does nothing to stop the problem it was supposed to stop." If you want to tread on my Constitutional rights, you're going to need a much better excuse. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. even the President is held to it. Yes, it can and does change, but that does not lessen its importance to the American system of government.
Take for example: How would you react if the government said you had to register and take a test before you could exercise your free speech? Or is that somehow different and special?
Video blogger Jason Mattera has Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky saying that an assault weapons ban is just the beginning. She also says that a complete ban on handguns could be possible through state and local action.
Dianne Feinsteins wish:
Attorney General Eric Holder
The Obama administration’s Attorney General Eric Holder doesn’t suggest banning or confiscating guns. He just thinks we should brainwash the American people into wanting to get rid of guns.
Alexzandvar wrote: I think it's fine and proper to own a gun for self defense, but I do also believe that suggesting gun proliferation is just as insane as banning guns.
We need better standards and funding for our police departments, once again something many states have failed spectacularly in doing.
You do a hell of a lot of talking for someone who clearly hasn't done enough listening in his 18 years.
Police departments are getting fething MRAPs, and yet cops in NY can't even be trusted with handguns as they seem to have a better track record of shooting bystanders and innocent people than criminals. You really want to throw more weaponry at people who are, at best, trained to mediocrity with handguns?
It's NYC. What do you expect. Upstate we are very intelligent about our gu-- Wait.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's a laugh, we're incompetent too.
If I learned anything from law and order, it's that Albany is the bastion of corrupt cops and New York City is the bation of incompetent cops And I wish Jack McCoy was a real person, cause that be awesome.
Alexzandvar wrote: I think it's fine and proper to own a gun for self defense, but I do also believe that suggesting gun proliferation is just as insane as banning guns.
We need better standards and funding for our police departments, once again something many states have failed spectacularly in doing.
Many county and municipality police departments are fielding armored cars and swat teams. How much more funding do you thing they need? Has the vast expenditure of dollars to date had an effect in line with the resources spent? What makes you think MOAR is the answer?
He really ought to pull his head out and up and take a peek around at reality...
Considering your posting history, that's rather rich.
LordofHats wrote: If I learned anything from law and order, it's that Albany is the bastion of corrupt cops and New York City is the bation of incompetent cops And I wish Jack McCoy was a real person, cause that be awesome.
That's actually a pretty good description. We have had a lot of political corruption lately too.
D: I want to discuss a better back round check system and more invesment in mental health
This is a mental health issue, not a ugh control issue. The background checks we presently have find what they should. Again, you can't force people into a mental health facility or force them to be diagnosed unless they've presented a clear and present danger to themselves or others.
I: Alright well what about laws mandating better fire arm training for carriers
These are already in place for CCWs. To put them in place to own a firearm is a gross violation of the 2nd amendment as forcing people to take said classes is an unfair burden to ownership.
and say better laws to hold those who do not secure there fire arms responsibly accountable.
I doubt you'd find any responsible gun owner that would have a problem with this, but only reactively or through the course of a criminal investigation. Requiring "checks" from the government to ensure proper storage of firearms prior to any crime being commited is grossly unconsititional.
You see why this is frustrating? Many of you keep shooting down possible solutions or things to help (Sometimes for silly reason's such as the slippery slope one) and refuse to provide any solution of your own.
None of the things you listed does anything to address the actual problem. Most gun crime is commited using unlawfully obtained firearms, with it occurring in greater rates in cities with A) stricter gun laws, b) high levels of gang activity, or C) both.
Alexzandvar wrote: I think it's fine and proper to own a gun for self defense, but I do also believe that suggesting gun proliferation is just as insane as banning guns.
We need better standards and funding for our police departments, once again something many states have failed spectacularly in doing.
Many county and municipality police departments are fielding armored cars and swat teams. How much more funding do you thing they need? Has the vast expenditure of dollars to date had an effect in line with the resources spent? What makes you think MOAR is the answer?
He really ought to pull his head out and up and take a peek around at reality...
Considering your posting history, that's rather rich.
Not really my problem that you cant handle truth.
Fortunately, I don't have to handle your "truth", so let's just leave it at that, shall we?
cincydooley wrote: None of the things you listed does anything to address the actual problem. Most gun crime is commited using unlawfully obtained firearms, with it occurring in greater rates in cities with A) stricter gun laws, b) high levels of gang activity, or C) both.
But....but......school shootings.......assault rifles..........gun nuts...........won't someone think of the children
There was a shooting just a few weeks ago in the mall near my home... kind of shocking. However, it was done with a shotgun...
I am an independent voter and not aligned to either political party regarding all issues... gun control is something I'm unsure about. I want people to have the right to bear arms, as is in the Constitution. However, if I ever personally own a gun it would likely be a hand gun, locked in a safe at all times. But then hand guns are used for more murders than any other type, as far as I know, so I've come full circle!
Having a background check to buy a firearm would be another easy middle ground. I feel like if the rhetoric could go down on both sides, there could be more progress on this issue.
RiTides wrote: There was a shooting just a few weeks ago in the mall near my home... kind of shocking. However, it was done with a shotgun...
I am an independent voter and not aligned to either political party regarding all issues... gun control is something I'm unsure about. I want people to have the right to bear arms, as is in the Constitution. However, if I ever personally own a gun it would likely be a hand gun, locked in a safe at all times. But then hand guns are used for more murders than any other type, as far as I know, so I've come full circle!
Having a background check to buy a firearm would be another easy middle ground. I feel like if the rhetoric could go down on both sides, there could be more progress on this issue.
Space your constant insistence that along with the rest of the posters here that gun legislation is a slippery slope is not only on its head silly, because all slippery slope arguments are, but are also impossible to disprove because your not working in facts but in wild mass guessing at to what might happen.
The idea that someone should know how to use a firearm regardless of what that firearm is absolutely common sense, and screaming about how for some reason the expectation a person whos allowed to carry a fire arm what ever it may be also knows how to well fething use it is unconsituional.
We all are basically walking in circles at this point however, every time we get close to finding a good solution such as accountability for owned fire arms and securing them or classes to make sure said owns know how to respect the weapon they posses someone just yells how for some reason the fact that a bunch of crazy people wrote down some vague rules we have abused and twisted over the past 200 years for our own legislative purposes you have the right to shoot down any argument becuase it could possibly be "unconstitutional" despite the fact what is fething constitutional and whats not is entirely dependent on how the cranky the supreme court is feeling that day.
And if you think that we are giving our police departments to MUCH funding then I don't have anything to say because your living in fantasy land, and I said that we need better funding in combination with better regulations so Joe Schmoe can't just blow off his PT test or refuse to know how to properly conduct himself with out being punished.
Solutions are always more complicated than just MOAR just as they are more complicated than LESS.
RiTides wrote: There was a shooting just a few weeks ago in the mall near my home... kind of shocking. However, it was done with a shotgun...
I am an independent voter and not aligned to either political party regarding all issues... gun control is something I'm unsure about. I want people to have the right to bear arms, as is in the Constitution. However, if I ever personally own a gun it would likely be a hand gun, locked in a safe at all times. But then hand guns are used for more murders than any other type, as far as I know, so I've come full circle!
Having a background check to buy a firearm would be another easy middle ground. I feel like if the rhetoric could go down on both sides, there could be more progress on this issue.
Criminals dont go through background checks. Only 1-2 percent of the NICS checks done result in prohibited persons being denied.
That said, I wouldnt mind having your drivers license tied in to whether or not you are a prohibited person. That way, at purchase, you swipe the card, instant check is done.
Alexzandvar wrote: someone just yells how for some reason the fact that a bunch of crazy people wrote down some vague rules we have abused and twisted over the past 200 years for our own legislative purposes you have the right to shoot down any argument becuase it could possibly be "unconstitutional" despite the fact what is fething constitutional and whats not is entirely dependent on how the cranky the supreme court is feeling that day.
You really may want to re-look your decision to take your contracting oath if that is truly how you feel.
And if you think that we are giving our police departments to MUCH funding then I don't have anything to say because your living in fantasy land, and I said that we need better funding in combination with better regulations so Joe Schmoe can't just blow off his PT test or refuse to know how to properly conduct himself with out being punished.
Solutions are always more complicated than just MOAR just as they are more complicated than LESS.
Have you done the slightest bit of research into state and local LE funding over the last two decades?
Do you think IEDs are a common threat within CONUS? Do you think MRAPs, purposely built for a high IED threat area, and expensive to train on and maintain are a good expenditure of tax payer money for local police forces?
Alexzandvar wrote: Space your constant insistence that along with the rest of the posters here that gun legislation is a slippery slope is not only on its head silly, because all slippery slope arguments are, but are also impossible to disprove because your not working in facts but in wild mass guessing at to what might happen.
The idea that someone should know how to use a firearm regardless of what that firearm is absolutely common sense, and screaming about how for some reason the expectation a person whos allowed to carry a fire arm what ever it may be also knows how to well fething use it is unconsituional.
We all are basically walking in circles at this point however, every time we get close to finding a good solution such as accountability for owned fire arms and securing them or classes to make sure said owns know how to respect the weapon they posses someone just yells how for some reason the fact that a bunch of crazy people wrote down some vague rules we have abused and twisted over the past 200 years for our own legislative purposes you have the right to shoot down any argument becuase it could possibly be "unconstitutional" despite the fact what is fething constitutional and whats not is entirely dependent on how the cranky the supreme court is feeling that day.
And if you think that we are giving our police departments to MUCH funding then I don't have anything to say because your living in fantasy land, and I said that we need better funding in combination with better regulations so Joe Schmoe can't just blow off his PT test or refuse to know how to properly conduct himself with out being punished.
Solutions are always more complicated than just MOAR just as they are more complicated than LESS.
It's this hard to get an armored vehicle:
Here's a link to apply for armored vehicle funding. Your welcome!
Alexzandvar wrote: someone just yells how for some reason the fact that a bunch of crazy people wrote down some vague rules we have abused and twisted over the past 200 years for our own legislative purposes you have the right to shoot down any argument becuase it could possibly be "unconstitutional" despite the fact what is fething constitutional and whats not is entirely dependent on how the cranky the supreme court is feeling that day.
You really may want to re-look your decision to take your contracting oath if that is truly how you feel.
That's what I mean by gut check. At 18, he's just starting out with ROTC. Hopefully he comes to grips with the Constitution he has sworn to uphold.
Alexzandvar wrote: someone just yells how for some reason the fact that a bunch of crazy people wrote down some vague rules we have abused and twisted over the past 200 years for our own legislative purposes you have the right to shoot down any argument becuase it could possibly be "unconstitutional" despite the fact what is fething constitutional and whats not is entirely dependent on how the cranky the supreme court is feeling that day.
Yeah..... Perhaps you should have a long and in depth talk with your CO if it is your genuine and heart felt belief that the Constitution that you have sworn to uphold is just "fact that a bunch of crazy people wrote down some vague rules".
Especially as, given your family's military pedigree, you should be more than aware that you will be required to defend those vague rules, drafted by crazy people. Up to and including making the ultimate sacrifice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spacemanvic wrote: Sad that some of the posters here think/feel like this satirist:
It was hilarious to watch the council member's faces. Some laughing, some just barely catching the joke, and some less than thrilled that their position was being derided in such an eloquent manner
Alexzandvar wrote: someone just yells how for some reason the fact that a bunch of crazy people wrote down some vague rules we have abused and twisted over the past 200 years for our own legislative purposes you have the right to shoot down any argument becuase it could possibly be "unconstitutional" despite the fact what is fething constitutional and whats not is entirely dependent on how the cranky the supreme court is feeling that day.
Yeah..... Perhaps you should have a long and in depth talk with your CO if it is your genuine and heart felt belief that the Constitution that you have sworn to uphold is just "fact that a bunch of crazy people wrote down some vague rules".
Especially as, given your family's military pedigree, you should be more than aware that you will be required to defend those vague rules, drafted by crazy people. Up to and including making the ultimate sacrifice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spacemanvic wrote: Sad that some of the posters here think/feel like this satirist:
It was hilarious to watch the council member's faces. Some laughing, some just barely catching the joke, and some less than thrilled that their position was being derided in such an eloquent manner
His posts exemplify the " "yes" man " attitude that would not think twice about shooting at his fellow countrymen. Dictatorships LOVE little robots.
And that the speaker was purportedly a Brit only makes the satire that much sweeter.
We all are basically walking in circles at this point however, every time we get close to finding a good solution such as accountability for owned fire arms
That’s not a good solution. That’s blackmail of legal owners for the crimes of others.
and securing them
All mine are secured. I believe its federal law to provide gun locks, or industry standard as every weapon I’ve purchased…and there’ve been er more then a few… in the last five years have had them. I have something like ten of them in a drawer and use them for locker locks, bike and bag locks. So already done. Next summation of something already occurring?
or classes to make sure said owns know how to respect the weapon they posses
Unconstitutional. I do not need a class to utilize my First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, or Ninth Amendment rights. Sorry and as the immortal bard said: suck it.
someone just yells how for some reason the fact that a bunch of crazy people wrote down some vague rules we have abused and twisted over the past 200 years for our own legislative purposes
YOU MEAN THE BILL OF RIGHTS? WHY ARE YOU EVEN IN THIS COUNTRY? Cuba is calling your name.
And if you think that we are giving our police departments to MUCH funding then I don't have anything to say because your living in fantasy land, and I said that we need better funding in combination with better regulations so Joe Schmoe can't just blow off his PT test or refuse to know how to properly conduct himself with out being punished.
You’re making a statement without facts. Its helpful to have those when making such an argument.
Spacemanvic wrote: And that the speaker was purportedly a Brit only makes the satire that much sweeter.
Sounded Scottish to my ears. I know that some Scots really don't like being called Brits
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: That’s not a good solution. That’s blackmail of legal owners for the crimes of others.
But don't you see? If we can restrict the rights of law abiding owners, and do nothing to tackle the root causes of violence in our society, and do not inconvenience criminals with illegally held arms, then we'll all just feel so much better
Spacemanvic wrote: And that the speaker was purportedly a Brit only makes the satire that much sweeter.
Sounded Scottish to my ears. I know that some Scots really don't like being called Brits
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: That’s not a good solution. That’s blackmail of legal owners for the crimes of others.
But don't you see? If we can restrict the rights of law abiding owners, and do nothing to tackle the root causes of violence in our society, and do not inconvenience criminals with illegally held arms, then we'll all just feel so much better
Alexzandvar wrote: I think it's fine and proper to own a gun for self defense, but I do also believe that suggesting gun proliferation is just as insane as banning guns.
We need better standards and funding for our police departments, once again something many states have failed spectacularly in doing.
Well since not one of you actually tried to refute my points that the Constitution is just as abused to bully people from having any sort of discussion on the subject of guns rights, nay you went on a proved it by suggesting because I question the literal application of a 225 year old document (The bill of rights was drafted the same year) I am a yes man for some sort of hypothetical dictatorship.
Have anyone of you stopped along the line to think that maybe the guy who questions previous notions is the guy trying to put a damper on "Yes manning" rather than the one who utterly faithfully demands subservience to a piece of paper.
The reason the bill of rights exists is no some grand stand against tyranny as you think it is, but rather a result of a conflict between Federalists and anti-constitutionalists. Oh how ironic it is you think that blind dedication to an old document is any better than blind dedication to a new document or creed. To place the word of the founding fathers above those modern men of the same rank and privilege is to destroy everything they fought for, the idea that a nation be not held in the bonds of past rules and expectations but that a nation might evolve beyond those constraints placed upon it by it's fore fathers.
And if you didn't get that it basically means the whole point of the revolution was freeing not just "people" from tyranny but a nation from being upholdent to dated ways of thinking, more specifically the ways of the thinking of the old British empire that were impoverishing the colonies. I would cite how Thomas Jefferson railed oh so hard against his brothers in arms, how he accused people we regard with respect today as naught but traitors and secret agents of the crown, but I would love to think you call can look up Tom's Wikipedia page.
If the Constitution is really so important to you (and all of it's amendments, another irony that if it were oh so perfect then why have we had to change it so much hmm? Possibly because its original words were being twisted to oppress or preventing the country from moving forward? That it maybe that we need to go back and change it in order to set ourselves free of 200 year old chains?) that you would call someone who signed that he would dedicate a minimum amount of years serving our country in return for college funds provided a oath breaker who should " go back to cuba" on a internet forum then go sue the white house because I'm not the one making the executive orders.
A lot of you should read up on early constitutional history. Politicians have been insane people who fight over the smallest things, and stay silent on the largest of things since government has existed.
And history and human nature did not stop, the human tendency towards Bia's did not disappear, humanity's desire to achieve something bigger than themselves did not wane, and our utter love of being absolute jerks to people we don't like (like how Thomas treated John Adams like crap) did not stop when the Constitution and bill of rights were written, and none of it has stopped yet today.
carlos13th wrote: Thing is if you have a gun and want to kill me I am fethed.
If you have a knife I may be able to run.
If you have an heavy object I might be able disarm you.
I cant outrun bullets, I cant close the distance and redirect the line of fire before you can squeeze a trigger. Unless you stand really close and I am very very lucky.
Actually, if you are 21 feet or closer, you can close the distance between you and an attacker before they can pull their firearm from it's holster. It's known as the reactionary gap. Also, in high stress situations, studies have shown that if an individual is talking, when combined with said stress, it is very difficult to pull a trigger.
Also, generally people that use guns to commit crimes are expecting you to submit, not charge them. If you can find cover (not concealment), great. Often times, though, your best option for survival is to fight.
Not sure about other states, but in Florida we have the Marchman Act, which allows a family member to (through the court) to force another to be psychologically evaluated, and detained in a treatment facility if deemed necessary by the evaluation.
Law enforcement has the same option, it's just known as the Baker Act.
In both cases, there does not have to be a history of violence, just a well founded suspicion that the individual in question may harm themselves or another.
Edit: spelling.
I am aware of that. That is usually reference in regards to a police officer having to deal with a knife wielding suspect. Or any suspect of unknown intent. Dan insanto did some great videos on it.
If someone is trying to kill you I think we can safley assume that the gun is already out. People dont tend to attack you with a holstered gun.
If we are talking about crime in general and not someone who activley wants to kill you then often the best course of action is to give them your wallet keys whatever and let them walk away. If they try to move you to a secondary location then fighting is probably your only option.
carlos13th wrote: Thing is if you have a gun and want to kill me I am fethed.
If you have a knife I may be able to run.
If you have an heavy object I might be able disarm you.
I cant outrun bullets, I cant close the distance and redirect the line of fire before you can squeeze a trigger. Unless you stand really close and I am very very lucky.
Actually, if you are 21 feet or closer, you can close the distance between you and an attacker before they can pull their firearm from it's holster. It's known as the reactionary gap. Also, in high stress situations, studies have shown that if an individual is talking, when combined with said stress, it is very difficult to pull a trigger.
Also, generally people that use guns to commit crimes are expecting you to submit, not charge them. If you can find cover (not concealment), great. Often times, though, your best option for survival is to fight.
Not sure about other states, but in Florida we have the Marchman Act, which allows a family member to (through the court) to force another to be psychologically evaluated, and detained in a treatment facility if deemed necessary by the evaluation.
Law enforcement has the same option, it's just known as the Baker Act.
In both cases, there does not have to be a history of violence, just a well founded suspicion that the individual in question may harm themselves or another.
Edit: spelling.
I am aware of that. That is usually reference in regards to a police officer having to deal with a knife wielding suspect. Or any suspect of unknown intent. Dan insanto did some great videos on it.
If someone is trying to kill you I think we can safley assume that the gun is already out.
If we are talking about crime in general and not someone who activley wants to kill you then often the best course of action is to give them your wallet keys whatever and let them walk away. If they try to move you to a secondary location then fighting is probably your only option.
Studies have shown that the actor has the advantage not disadvantage. I may have the draw on you but I am reacting vs. your acting. This is amplified if you're talking at me. Studies with airguns and "BG's" with holstered firearms, and "GG" cops with guns out and pointed with the "Don't Move" by a substantial majority held that, if the guy with the holstered firearm immediately draws and shoots, he's shoot before the GG. His aim will be worse however.
Just an interesting FYI. You do whats best in the situation you hopefully will have maneuvered to be out of the situation in the first place.
I will say in a home invasion you shoot. Don't hesitate, just shoot. In recent years, at least in Texas, a home invasion means the BG is likely going to kill you and/or rape you.
Twenty seven of those times the change was ratified.
People aren't responding to you anymore because it's becoming increasingly clear you don't really know what you're talking about.
I mean, for lack of better phrasing, all of your posts read with the wide eyed naivety of an 18 year old college freshman that's had his first semester of classes and thinks he's all super enlightened.
Unfortunately, you're simply wrong about a lot of stuff.
Alexzandvar wrote: Well since not one of you actually tried to refute my points that the Constitution is just as abused to bully people from having any sort of discussion on the subject of guns rights, nay you went on a proved it by suggesting because I question the literal application of a 225 year old document (The bill of rights was drafted the same year) I am a yes man for some sort of hypothetical dictatorship.
Have anyone of you stopped along the line to think that maybe the guy who questions previous notions is the guy trying to put a damper on "Yes manning" rather than the one who utterly faithfully demands subservience to a piece of paper.
The reason the bill of rights exists is no some grand stand against tyranny as you think it is, but rather a result of a conflict between Federalists and anti-constitutionalists. Oh how ironic it is you think that blind dedication to an old document is any better than blind dedication to a new document or creed. To place the word of the founding fathers above those modern men of the same rank and privilege is to destroy everything they fought for, the idea that a nation be not held in the bonds of past rules and expectations but that a nation might evolve beyond those constraints placed upon it by it's fore fathers.
And if you didn't get that it basically means the whole point of the revolution was freeing not just "people" from tyranny but a nation from being upholdent to dated ways of thinking, more specifically the ways of the thinking of the old British empire that were impoverishing the colonies. I would cite how Thomas Jefferson railed oh so hard against his brothers in arms, how he accused people we regard with respect today as naught but traitors and secret agents of the crown, but I would love to think you call can look up Tom's Wikipedia page.
If the Constitution is really so important to you (and all of it's amendments, another irony that if it were oh so perfect then why have we had to change it so much hmm? Possibly because its original words were being twisted to oppress or preventing the country from moving forward? That it maybe that we need to go back and change it in order to set ourselves free of 200 year old chains?) that you would call someone who signed that he would dedicate a minimum amount of years serving our country in return for college funds provided a oath breaker who should " go back to cuba" on a internet forum then go sue the white house because I'm not the one making the executive orders.
A lot of you should read up on early constitutional history. Politicians have been insane people who fight over the smallest things, and stay silent on the largest of things since government has existed.
And history and human nature did not stop, the human tendency towards Bia's did not disappear, humanity's desire to achieve something bigger than themselves did not wane, and our utter love of being absolute jerks to people we don't like (like how Thomas treated John Adams like crap) did not stop when the Constitution and bill of rights were written, and none of it has stopped yet today.
You really do need to resign your commission. How can you in good conscious take your oath with that view?
Alexzandvar wrote: Well since not one of you actually tried to refute my points that the Constitution is just as abused to bully people from having any sort of discussion on the subject of guns rights, nay you went on a proved it by suggesting because I question the literal application of a 225 year old document (The bill of rights was drafted the same year) I am a yes man for some sort of hypothetical dictatorship.
Have anyone of you stopped along the line to think that maybe the guy who questions previous notions is the guy trying to put a damper on "Yes manning" rather than the one who utterly faithfully demands subservience to a piece of paper.
The reason the bill of rights exists is no some grand stand against tyranny as you think it is, but rather a result of a conflict between Federalists and anti-constitutionalists. Oh how ironic it is you think that blind dedication to an old document is any better than blind dedication to a new document or creed. To place the word of the founding fathers above those modern men of the same rank and privilege is to destroy everything they fought for, the idea that a nation be not held in the bonds of past rules and expectations but that a nation might evolve beyond those constraints placed upon it by it's fore fathers.
And if you didn't get that it basically means the whole point of the revolution was freeing not just "people" from tyranny but a nation from being upholdent to dated ways of thinking, more specifically the ways of the thinking of the old British empire that were impoverishing the colonies. I would cite how Thomas Jefferson railed oh so hard against his brothers in arms, how he accused people we regard with respect today as naught but traitors and secret agents of the crown, but I would love to think you call can look up Tom's Wikipedia page.
If the Constitution is really so important to you (and all of it's amendments, another irony that if it were oh so perfect then why have we had to change it so much hmm? Possibly because its original words were being twisted to oppress or preventing the country from moving forward? That it maybe that we need to go back and change it in order to set ourselves free of 200 year old chains?) that you would call someone who signed that he would dedicate a minimum amount of years serving our country in return for college funds provided a oath breaker who should " go back to cuba" on a internet forum then go sue the white house because I'm not the one making the executive orders.
A lot of you should read up on early constitutional history. Politicians have been insane people who fight over the smallest things, and stay silent on the largest of things since government has existed.
And history and human nature did not stop, the human tendency towards Bia's did not disappear, humanity's desire to achieve something bigger than themselves did not wane, and our utter love of being absolute jerks to people we don't like (like how Thomas treated John Adams like crap) did not stop when the Constitution and bill of rights were written, and none of it has stopped yet today.
You really do need to resign your commission. How can you in good conscious take your oath with that view?
At 18, he's not commissioned yet. At best his scholarship gets pulled.
Frazzled wrote: Studies have shown that the actor has the advantage not disadvantage. I may have the draw on you but I am reacting vs. your acting. This is amplified if you're talking at me. Studies with airguns and "BG's" with holstered firearms, and "GG" cops with guns out and pointed with the "Don't Move" by a substantial majority held that, if the guy with the holstered firearm immediately draws and shoots, he's shoot before the GG. His aim will be worse however.
Depends on how often he practices his Zubiena Miami Vice drills!
carlos13th wrote: Yeah I would say that home invasion is a different to someone holding you up for your wallet in the street for example.
I didn't know about those particular studies Fraz will have to check them out. Do you have links to them?
I will look. I swear it was on NPR of all places a few years ago or something. We tried it at the house and its surprising. ESPECIALLY if the person who's already drawn gets talking.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
At 18, he's not commissioned yet. At best his scholarship gets pulled.
Sorry I meant his ROTC commission and scholarship. You're very correct.
carlos13th wrote: Yeah I would say that home invasion is a different to someone holding you up for your wallet in the street for example.
I didn't know about those particular studies Fraz will have to check them out. Do you have links to them?
I will look. I swear it was on NPR of all places a few years ago or something. We tried it at the house and its surprising. ESPECIALLY if the person who's already drawn gets talking.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
At 18, he's not commissioned yet. At best his scholarship gets pulled.
Sorry I meant his ROTC commission and scholarship. You're very correct.
No worries!!
Back to defensive gun use, Id read that about 1/4 of the time, the firearm is used outside the home in self defense. One of the reasons I carry in the house.
Twenty seven of those times the change was ratified.
People aren't responding to you anymore because it's becoming increasingly clear you don't really know what you're talking about.
I mean, for lack of better phrasing, all of your posts read with the wide eyed naivety of an 18 year old college freshman that's had his first semester of classes and thinks he's all super enlightened.
Unfortunately, you're simply wrong about a lot of stuff.
You have no argument though. Calling me an 18 year old that is "wide eyed and naive" just reasserts the fact rather than put time or effort into trying to refute my points or engage in debate and discussion over an interesting topic you would just throw insults around.
"You're simply wrong about a lot of stuff" is not an argument. With out being able to say what that is, or articulate how anything I said was wrong you just give the impression you in fact don't have a challenge to what I said and that your attitude just serves as more proof for my thesis that people are putting far to much faith in a document who's author called a "Imperfect solution".
The concern that I'm still breaking an oath is cute honestly. Tell me: Is it not the right of the soldier to call into question the validity of the supposed document he is fighting to protect, because he may be expected to die to protect it? If this country was one founded on the freedoms you claim to cling to so hard in the bill of rights then wouldn't it be the last country to question those who question old dogma?
Truly the dreams of our founders are dead if the idea of a soldier being able to question what hes fighting for is met with scorn and hatred.
Just motivates me more to get involved in the military, in politics, and to hopefully steer this country in a direction away from the spiral of gridlock and clinging to antiquated ways. What ever future you want were this country is condemned to be naught but a dusty backwater nation clinging to out of date ways is a future I will do what I can to avoid.
"Better the uncertainty of a future we go into having shed the irons of old law and expectations than an assured future were we wither and die in the comfort of what was deemed "Acceptable""
Thats a quote by the way, from that insane anarchist hippy, otherwise known as Thomas Jefferson.
Oh and before I forget I assure you all I will keep the scholarship, because what kind of monster would I be to deny the one who didn't get it a chance to pull themselves up by their bootstraps rather than live on the federal dime like me.
Tell me: Is it not the right of the soldier to call into question the validity of the supposed document he is fighting to protect, because he may be expected to die to protect it? If this country was one founded on the freedoms you claim to cling to so hard in the bill of rights then wouldn't it be the last country to question those who question old dogma?
No, it isn't the right. Let me explain: You of your own free will, swear an oath to support and defend that 'supposed document'.
I, _____, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
You are admitting to mental reservations. If you had them and still swore the oath, you are wrong. There is no wiggle room in that oath. No one puts a gun to your head and forces those words from your mouth. If you really don't get that, again, you really need to rethink your choice to accept being contracted.
I say this as a guy who has been an ROTC instructor, is married to an active duty officer who is about to take a BDE command, has been a combat arms officer, and has a son in ROTC who this spring will graduate, and get commissioned as an infantry officer. I know a bit about the oath. I've taught it, to include significance/meaning, and I've administered it many times when commissioning cadets into 2LTs and when promoting some of my LTs when I was still on active duty.
You have the right and responsibility to refuse to cary out illegal or unconstitutional orders. If you deny or question the validity of the document you have sworn to support and defend, you have sworn a false oath, and as such, should not be a commissioned officer. It isn't hard to get.
EDIT: Here is the oath of enlistment you allegedly took to become a contracted cadet:
Oath of Enlistment (Contracting Oath)
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I wil l support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officer s appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
are you trolling?
about soldiers dying.
.
Da feth?
