Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Because some morons in NY represent all cops everywhere.

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.

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.

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.

In that case there are extremely few assault weapons not in the hands of the government in the USA. They are illegal here without special license.

Knockagh wrote:
I'm no expert but I would class an assault weapon as one that is automatic.

Da feth?

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.

 whembly wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 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.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
turbo hitler

I'm fairly busy at the moment but this really feels like an idea that deserves some kind of photoshop.

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

Isn't Colorado an OC state?

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!

 Ouze wrote:

 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.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Isn't Colorado an OC state?

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

 Alexzandvar wrote:


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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:


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.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 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

 whembly wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 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.

And ah yes turbo hitler...

 Ouze wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
turbo hitler

I'm fairly busy at the moment but this really feels like an idea that deserves some kind of photoshop.

PLEASE DO!

 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....

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

 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:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

 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!

 djones520 wrote:

 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.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 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.

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:

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

 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