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.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I've been listening to the BBC since this morning to avoid NPR and the other news. They're off the charts milking this thing for Day Three.

:/

A bit much to complain that this shooting is receiving news coverage.

I dont think so, By this time, We all know it happened. Right not cover som other news?

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I've been listening to the BBC since this morning to avoid NPR and the other news. They're off the charts milking this thing for Day Three.

:/

A bit much to complain that this shooting is receiving news coverage.

I've been watching the news since nine o'clock this morning. There's only been one news story on for the majority of that. The annoying thing is that at this hour the channel's not meant to be focussed on world news. I mean they keep all the African/Asian, etc, news till one in the morning, and yet the US news pops up 24/7 (they even have a small exert dedicate to CNN, which is hilarious). Really, the world isn't America and everyone else, but the media knows that people in the west don't give a toss about Eastern news for the most part.

Hmn, I wonder if the German news is running this story on all stations right now...

Heh, its now cut to a parliament's "discussion" (insert two men passing dumb remarks as their peers make throaty laughing sounds like children). Probably due to it being live and an opportunity to complain about the EU I guess.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I've been listening to the BBC since this morning to avoid NPR and the other news. They're off the charts milking this thing for Day Three.

:/

A bit much to complain that this shooting is receiving news coverage.

Three days straight? On every channel 24 hours straight? Really?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I dont think so, By this time, We all know it happened. Right not cover som other news?

The 24-hour news cycle: bringing you the best in saying the same thing about the same subject for days.

"News" isn't just stuff you haven't heard about yet.

 Seaward wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I dont think so, By this time, We all know it happened. Right not cover som other news?

The 24-hour news cycle: bringing you the best in saying the same thing about the same subject for days.

^^ The BBC's great for that until it hits after the watershed. After that well ...it becomes a little lax as they bring in the world correspondents. The (South) Korean correspondent is always a good watch as you can clearly see that she really isn't into her job (in one report about the DPRK she ended it by saying, "feth this I'm off to get some coffee"). But I guess they don't expect someone to sit there and watch revolving news articles all day when there's other legitimate channels available.

 Frazzled wrote:

Individuals known to have firearms should, in my opinion, be subject to random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that firearms are stored properly in accordance with the training and certification that the individuals received.

You better have a warrant and you better bring a lot of friends.

And people wonder why people consider the pro-gun lobby to be so confrontational...

Responsible gun ownership, if so important to the pro-gun lobby, should not simply be "training an individual how to hold a gun and use it". That is not where the responsibility ends.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
"News" isn't just stuff you haven't heard about yet.

Bingo.

This is a developing story, even if we know that the event itself is over. The impact of the Sandy Hook shooting is going to be something which is worth following.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Responsible gun ownership, if so important to the pro-gun lobby, should not simply be "training an individual how to hold a gun and use it". That is not where the responsibility ends.

Who's responsibility? You seem to be using that word to reference two different sets of actors.

 Manchu wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Responsible gun ownership, if so important to the pro-gun lobby, should not simply be "training an individual how to hold a gun and use it". That is not where the responsibility ends.

Who's responsibility? You seem to be using that word to reference two different sets of actors.

The owner of the firearms in question.

And the responsibility of the agency which allowed the owner of said firearms to acquire them.

And people wonder why people consider the pro-gun lobby to be so confrontational...

Responsible gun ownership, if so important to the pro-gun lobby, should not simply be "training an individual how to hold a gun and use it". That is not where the responsibility ends.
****Wait are you advocating illegal warrantless searches now? How polizei of you.

Bingo.

This is a developing story, even if we know that the event itself is over. The impact of the Sandy Hook shooting is going to be something which is worth following.
****Its yellow journalism sob stories now.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And the responsibility of the agency which allowed the owner of said firearms to acquire them.

And here's the police state mentaility right there. We're "allowed" by the government to have some of our rights.

Here's some Frazzled recommended changes.
-No gunshow loophole, if it still exists. We had to go through an NCIS at a gun show years ago, but I don't know if that was standard or now. I'm all for background checks for that and private sales.
-Waiting period. A two week waiting period. I think its dumber than a box of rocks, but can go with it as not being overly restrictive.
-A deeper check on mental state, and coordinating the data banks if that is not done, as it has been mentioned that the NCIS is hit or miss (didn't know that - should have figured it being government).

On the flip side I want to see serious concrete changes to the mental health system. In everry case I've seen, its quickly come out that the guys has had runins or concerns at school or other authorities and that he was a known crazy.

-

Please use the quotation feature correctly or not at all. Thanks! ~Manchu

"You have a weapon designed to kill people in your possession. May I check it to make sure that its stored in the correct manner"

"If you want to do than they'll you'll have to get through me and my friends armed with said weapons"

Well doesn't that make you come across as non confrontational...

 Kanluwen wrote:
And people wonder why people consider the pro-gun lobby to be so confrontational...

Because they react unfavorably to wildly unconstitutional ideas?

This is a developing story, even if we know that the event itself is over. The impact of the Sandy Hook shooting is going to be something which is worth following.

I doubt it, personally, though with the media pushing a narrative this hard, you may end up being right.

 Frazzled wrote:
And people wonder why people consider the pro-gun lobby to be so confrontational...

Responsible gun ownership, if so important to the pro-gun lobby, should not simply be "training an individual how to hold a gun and use it". That is not where the responsibility ends.
****Wait are you advocating illegal warrantless searches now? How polizei of you.

Nowhere am I advocating that.

But what the hell would be the point of any kind of "check-in" done with prior notification?

Bingo.

This is a developing story, even if we know that the event itself is over. The impact of the Sandy Hook shooting is going to be something which is worth following.
****Its yellow journalism sob stories now.

Not really.

 Kanluwen wrote:

And the responsibility of the agency which allowed the owner of said firearms to acquire them.

And here's the police state mentality right there. We're "allowed" by the government to have some of our rights.

You have to apply for a concealed carry permit, do you not?

OMG! POLICE STATE!

 Kanluwen wrote:
But what the hell would be the point of any kind of "check-in" done with prior notification?

I don't think he asked for prior notification, I think he asked for a warrant.

I think we could probably catch a lot more criminals of all sorts if the police were allowed to randomly "inspect" an individual's house and their car whenever they chose.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
But what the hell would be the point of any kind of "check-in" done with prior notification?

I don't think he asked for prior notification, I think he asked for a warrant.

Which may as well be prior notification, considering the steps to obtain a warrant.

I think we could probably catch a lot more criminals of all sorts if the police were allowed to randomly "inspect" an individual's house and their car whenever they chose.

We already do such things in the form of exigent circumstances.

Well Crime Blitzes are ever so effective mind...

But really, it does come across as pretty lax that your government doesn't even bother to check up on the condition of the weapons carried by its citizens. Admitedly though enforcing it'd be a tad difficult considering that everyone and they're mother has the damn things, and that your rather touchy about the supposed infringment of your rights.

Meh, I guess countries have different idealologies which aren't compatible with one another. I mean how many people on this thread outside of the US are actually adovacating their current handling of gun laws? =P

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
But what the hell would be the point of any kind of "check-in" done with prior notification?

I don't think he asked for prior notification, I think he asked for a warrant.

Which may as well be prior notification, considering the steps to obtain a warrant.

I think we could probably catch a lot more criminals of all sorts if the police were allowed to randomly "inspect" an individual's house and their car whenever they chose.

We already do such things in the form of exigent circumstances.

Wait you mean that police and lawyers don't just go into a judge's office that "owes them a favor" to get a warrant?!

TV crime shows... you've lied to me.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And the responsibility of the agency which allowed the owner of said firearms to acquire them.

That assumes a particular view of government not shared by many of our countrymen, namely that we need permission from the government to do anything. I think many Americans look at it in the reverse: the government requires the permission of the people to do anything.

 Kanluwen wrote:
We already do such things in the form of exigent circumstances.

So you're simply proposing that ownership of a firearm be considered a de facto exigent circumstance?

You remember earlier when you were asking how the Constitution could possibly become disregarded in America?

 Wyrmalla wrote:
"You have a weapon designed to kill people in your possession. May I check it to make sure that its stored in the correct manner"

"If you want to do than they'll you'll have to get through me and my friends armed with said weapons"

Well doesn't that make you come across as non confrontational...

"You have a weapon designed to kill people in your possession. May I check it to make sure that its stored in the correct manner"

"No you may not, unless you have been issued a valid warrant from a court in this jurisdiction."

How about that response?

 Manchu wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
"You have a weapon designed to kill people in your possession. May I check it to make sure that its stored in the correct manner"

"If you want to do than they'll you'll have to get through me and my friends armed with said weapons"

Well doesn't that make you come across as non confrontational...

"You have a weapon designed to kill people in your possession. May I check it to make sure that its stored in the correct manner"

"No you may not, unless you have been issued a valid warrant from a court in this jurisdiction."

How about that response?

I would imagine that if the government wanted impose such a law then they'd have the foresight to make it legal...

Or would the American people start blithering on about they're rights and how such a law would be infringing upon their holy bible that is the Constitution? =P


Automatically Appended Next Post:


^^

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Individuals known to have firearms should, in my opinion, be subject to random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that firearms are stored properly in accordance with the training and certification that the individuals received.

You better have a warrant and you better bring a lot of friends.

And people wonder why people consider the pro-gun lobby to be so confrontational...

Yeah I tend to be confrontational with fascist windbags. Wierd.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
I would imagine that if the government wanted impose such a law then they'd have the foresight to make it legal

First, you seem to be assuming that our government and our people are opposing forces. This is false. But it's a common mistake even over here, usually made by rightwing nutjobs. Second, I think legislators would be hard pressed to simply ignore the fourth amendment. Although, since your argument presumes they are already ignoring the fifth ...

=P And like I said, your Constitution makes it awfully hard to change your mindset. You follow it as though it were a mantra and seem to derive your morals from it.

It'd be nice if someone actually got around to updating it for the 21st centuary, instead of youknow, using laws written out how many hundreds of years ago to define your current society. Not to say that every other country doesn't use decrees from x amout of years ago for this either. An issue would be say that you're abusing the right to defend yourself against foreign invasion from the British to allow everyone to go about toting military hardware...

 AustonT wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Individuals known to have firearms should, in my opinion, be subject to random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that firearms are stored properly in accordance with the training and certification that the individuals received.

You better have a warrant and you better bring a lot of friends.

And people wonder why people consider the pro-gun lobby to be so confrontational...

Yeah I tend to be confrontational with fascist windbags. Wierd.

And I tend to be confrontational with illogical arguments.

Weird.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
We already do such things in the form of exigent circumstances.

So you're simply proposing that ownership of a firearm be considered a de facto exigent circumstance?

You remember earlier when you were asking how the Constitution could possibly become disregarded in America?

That is not "disregarding the Constitution".

That is adding an interpretation to a situation which was likely not considered by the founding fathers in a document which was written in an age where there was a very real fear that the government would turn out to be the same as the one they had left behind.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And I tend to be confrontational with illogical arguments.

Weird.

Would you consider, "The Fourth Amendment doesn't just disappear because you think it would be a good idea," to be an illogical argument?

 Wyrmalla wrote:
You follow it as though it were a mantra and seem to derive your morals from it.

While I agree that some Americans seem idolatrously invested in the Constitution, I disagree that a general prohibition on warrantless searches is no longer timely.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And I tend to be confrontational with illogical arguments.

Weird.

Would you consider, "The Fourth Amendment doesn't just disappear because you think it would be a good idea," to be an illogical argument?

Would you consider "What constitutes an unreasonable search?" to be an illogical response?

In all seriousness, how much government involvement is already present in owning a firearm for concealed carry?

What possible harm could come from allowing random searches? I really want to know, because every argument seems to be predicated upon the idea that "I can carry guns because the 2nd Amendment says I can!".

 Kanluwen wrote:
That is not "disregarding the Constitution".

That is adding an interpretation to a situation which was likely not considered by the founding fathers in a document which was written in an age where there was a very real fear that the government would turn out to be the same as the one they had left behind.

I believe most legal scholars - and sitting judges - would agree that allowing random "inspections" of a home to check for criminal activity without a warrant or probable cause, or the threat of imminent danger or evidence destruction, or the chance of a suspect escaping would be considered to be disregarding the Constitution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
In all seriousness, how much government involvement is already present in owning a firearm for concealed carry?

Depends on where you live. Not a lot, in my case. I have to renew the permit every five years, but that just involves sending in the form again.

What possible harm could come from allowing random searches? I really want to know, because every argument seems to be predicated upon the idea that "I can carry guns because the 2nd Amendment says I can!".

And every argument in favor of free speech seems to be predicated upon the idea that "I have freedom of speech because the 1st Amendment says I do!"

It's almost like that's what the Bill of Rights was designed for, laying down a certain set of rights that required no further proof of legitimacy.

 Kanluwen wrote:
What possible harm could come from allowing random searches?

What possible harm could come from allowing police men to randomly enter your house and go through your things?

What possible harm? Really?

"ONLY CRIMINALS FEAR AUTHORITY"