Gun threads

[Marlene]

I can't offer a solution, at least one that you might accept, but any actual solution does not involve disarming millions in order to provide the illusion of protection for a microscopic handful of people. Confiscating and/or limiting my choices of weapons does little to protect me. Someone else maybe, but certainly not me. Why is my protection secondary to that of others? Why should I have to give up or have limits placed on my property so that others can feel a false sense of security?

there isn't an easy answer to this. what I do know is that a crazy people who grabs for a high cap. clip and a semi auto weapon can do a lot of damage in a short time span compared to a crazy person with a regular clip and a regular gun. that may not seem like much of a difference but it gives those in the path a chance to react, get out of the way or pull out their own gun and blast the guy. it isn't about limiting guns, it is more about removing high cap. clips from and semi-autos from the market. it is about having a sense of personal responsiblity when you own a gun to keep it out of the hands of those who shouldn't have access to it.

This is merely my personal opinion, and I do not believe our current selection of officials is trying to put us under any form of dicatorship kind of rule...however power corrupts, and things can drift south fairly quick if people don't keep things in check.

agree. what worries me is the call for armed guards/cops in schools. the first thing that leads to a police state is the call for action by the people for more armed protection. power does corrupt and the last thing I want to see is armed patrols in schools, street corners, malls, at the movies, etc.

PS thanks to both bob and Flame for just having a conversation on the topic as it is complex and as we have seen, most of these threads have been locked down. thanks for talking about it instead of name calling, it is refreshing.

 

[OldPaint]

didnt the germans & russians have armed troopers at schools???? hummmmmmmm

 

[bob]

...it isn't about limiting guns, it is more about removing high cap. clips from and semi-autos from the market...

If I may paraphrase the above: "This isn't about limiting guns, it's about limiting guns."

That aside and apropos of nothing, I'm always amused and at the same time furious when someone unctuously states that they see no need for anyone to possess this or that, like more rounds in a magazine than they deem proper or semi-automatic action or a gun that just looks nasty.

In this context the word 'need' is much like the word 'should' as in you should do this or that. In both cases the criteria for both of these terms is always set by other's demands placed on you. 'Need' is especially loathsome in that when someone questions your need for something that somehow you must justify yourself to them. I recognize no such obligation and neither should anyone else.

As for myself I do things, and have things, because I want to and I can. I do not and will not justify my needs or my choices to anyone. Only I and I alone am capable of choosing for myself. I try never to rationalize my choices by appealing to need or the external morality of 'should'.

 

[Billct2]

The belief that the Japanese did not invade the US because of a fear of armed citizens has little basis in fact. There were other strategic reasons that they didn't invade.

 

[OldPaint]

you are right bill. where some people get they information speaks volumes on the B.S. they will take as fact.
wasnt untill the late 70's that JAPAN INVADED THE U.S. and had nothing to do with guns. do these ring any bells and how many of you OWN THEIR PRODUCTS?
YAMAMHA
ROLAND
TOYOTA
NISSAN
KAWASAKI
SUSUKI
MITSUBISHI
HONDA
there is your JAPANESE INVASION... and you all participated in it))))))))))

 

[fmg]

One of my opinions amongst many and agreeing with Piers Morgan on the subject of banning guns.

 

[OldPaint]

wont work..........there are those that are UN-TEACHABLE......and they frequent guns stores)))))

 

[Gino]

I don't know about some sentimental reason for the Japanese not to invade the US was because every second home owned guns or not, but they were as much afraid of invading us.... as we were of them. They were pretty much just setting up a defensive mechanism to keep us away, while they took over other places in the East Dutch Indies, Burma, China and New Guinea. They never had the facilities, shipping power or army to sustain a full scale invasion of the US. They never could've successfully completed supply lines, let alone.... why would they want to invade a country this large ?? They couldn't even do it in China up against a completely pitiful army and poorly armed citizens.

Me, I'll never win out against a government attack, but to think it can't happened, again for sentimental reasons is foolish. Just because it's never really happened here, don't think it can't. Read history [world history] and try to learn from it.

As for this thread staying on topic...... more power to ya.

 

[Marlene]

If I may paraphrase the above: "This isn't about limiting guns, it's about limiting guns."

That aside and apropos of nothing, I'm always amused and at the same time furious when someone unctuously states that they see no need for anyone to possess this or that, like more rounds in a magazine than they deem proper or semi-automatic action or a gun that just looks nasty.

In this context the word 'need' is much like the word 'should' as in you should do this or that. In both cases the criteria for both of these terms is always set by other's demands placed on you. 'Need' is especially loathsome in that when someone questions your need for something that somehow you must justify yourself to them. I recognize no such obligation and neither should anyone else.

As for myself I do things, and have things, because I want to and I can. I do not and will not justify my needs or my choices to anyone. Only I and I alone am capable of choosing for myself. I try never to rationalize my choices by appealing to need or the external morality of 'should'.

the right to own a gun doesn't include the add ons like clips, types of ammo etc. the right to own a gun also doesn't include the type of gun. there is a ban on fully auto weapons so it is possible to own a gun and have some common sense about it. need? no one really needs a gun at all, they want one and should be able to have one and with that I have no issues. what I have issues with is the size of the clips, the assualt rifles and people not taking personal responsibility for their guns. if you own a gun, you are responsible for keeping it out of the hands of others. the NRA had a great chance to gain the respect of those who have no repsect for them by coming out and defending the right to own guns but saying that some common sense needs to be addressed. freedom isn't free. we hear that all the time and to me it means a lot of different things, one being freedoms are maintained by policing yourself. if you want your rights, you need to earn them by being responsible. be irresponsible and people will work to police you, plain and simple. no matter how my stand may come off sounding, the bottom line is I don't want to see a time when our government steps in a does won't we won't ourselves. if you don't think that day will come, look around you. people are fed up with turning on the news and seeing yet another mass killing and when people are fed up, they demand results.

 

[threeputt]

Criminals and un-hinged people don't necessarily have to pass background checks. Or wait three days, etc.

The nut job in Connecticut stole his weapons from his mother, who I understand, lawfully obtained and owned them.

Regarding guns themselves, what I believe is it wasn't what was in his hands, it was what was in his heart.

Let's work on identifying persons who may have emotional problems (which may include criminal bents) and try to help them. I do understand that State and Federal statutes are limited as to what involvement they can have in this area unless the person "acts out" or in some way shows a propensity to harm others. (or himself).

But....family members and friends of these individuals may notice something "not right" and begin the process of trying to help.

Complex problem. Many fronts to look at.

I'm not in favor of disarming law abiding people to try and rub salve on the problem of a single whack job going off and killing a bunch of innocents in a random act.

 

[Gino]

In a perfect world Marlene, your theory is spot on, but as much as we'd like citizens to be proper about taking care of guns, locking them away and being responsible for their own actions... I'm afraid there are far too many people on this planet and in this country who don't think the same way and think they are above the law and the laws were written for other people.

If we could control.... or better yet..... educate how someone was to take care of the guns, why couldn't we rely on that same thinking to take place with drinking ?? Drugs ?? Porn ?? Driving poorly ?? Kidnapping ?? Stealing ?? ............. and the list just goes on.

We're a nation of let the other guy worry about it. It doesn't concern me. I'll turn my head and bingo.... it ain't happenin' to me. However, we all know, these epidemic horrors are hitting closer and closer to home each and every day. The world has become so much smaller. A guy can f*rt in a cave over in Tibet and we know about it 7 seconds later via internet. Not only he f*rted, but how loud, how long and did he light a match to it.

I agree, the size of a clip is kinda par for the course... or buying bazookas or machine guns, but this country seems to find loopholes everywhere and in everything. By people taking advantage of a little loophole, our government in order to protect us must make it safer for it's citizens. Therefore, it becomes easy to just ban everything across the board. I can't blame them. Now, my rights have been stumped on the goodness and well-being of me... against me.

Only the honest will obey. The rest of the world and the crazies will still have illegal access to this stuff, such as the kid who stole his Mother's guns and then fired on the school children. Everything he did was illegal, but the law abiding citizens have to give up their rights..... not the crazies or criminals.

It's kinda like..... all the crazies and criminals do 99% of the wrong things here, so take away our rights to fix things ??

There's been a war on drugs for decades if not centuries, but at a much higher volume in the last 40 or 50 years in this country. All drugs are bad, illegal and wrong. We can't beat it, so what are they saying... let's make drugs legal so we can monitor it and make money on it. Wha ?? But take our guns away little by little. Isn't this sending cross-signals ??

Anyway, I intend to keep mine as long as possible and have no intentions of doing anything wrong with them.... not even shoot them off New Year's Eve.

 

[mnapuran]

On topic? http://www.evilchili.com/videos/36692/Badass_Hidden_Shelving_System

 

[Mosh]

Don't matter. I can still buy fertilizer, racing fuel, and rent Ryder trucks. There were no shots fired in Oklahoma City...

 

[TammieH]

There are anti-gun peeps and pro-gun peeps...neither will budge one way or the other unless they experience some sort of life changing experience. So why discuss it in a sign forum?

 

[signguy54]

the right to own a gun doesn't include the add ons like clips, types of ammo etc. the right to own a gun also doesn't include the type of gun. there is a ban on fully auto weapons so it is possible to own a gun and have some common sense about it. need? no one really needs a gun at all, they want one and should be able to have one and with that I have no issues. what I have issues with is the size of the clips, the assualt rifles and people not taking personal responsibility for their guns. if you own a gun, you are responsible for keeping it out of the hands of others. the NRA had a great chance to gain the respect of those who have no repsect for them by coming out and defending the right to own guns but saying that some common sense needs to be addressed. freedom isn't free. we hear that all the time and to me it means a lot of different things, one being freedoms are maintained by policing yourself. if you want your rights, you need to earn them by being responsible. be irresponsible and people will work to police you, plain and simple. no matter how my stand may come off sounding, the bottom line is I don't want to see a time when our government steps in a does won't we won't ourselves. if you don't think that day will come, look around you. people are fed up with turning on the news and seeing yet another mass killing and when people are fed up, they demand results.

naive, imho

 

[Marlene]

naive, imho

really, in what way? when those with the rights don't defend those rights by being responsible, they will lose those rights, it is how the world works. Gino said it well when he talked about the loopholes. there are always loopholes and when they aren't policed by those who should they will be by those who shouldn't and by that I mean laws getting passed. having a right doesn't mean doing any thing you want and no one can stop you. that kind of thinking is what will be the cause of new gun laws. I don't believe that it is an either or situation where you take a stance and that's it. that is what the news medias will have you believe is how the world works. you take a side and hold on no matter what. people who don't think the same have been able to resolve issues in the past and they can do it again. if that is naive, then so be it. to me it is the American way.

 

[bob]

the right to own a gun doesn't include the add ons like clips, types of ammo etc. the right to own a gun also doesn't include the type of gun. there is a ban on fully auto weapons so it is possible to own a gun and have some common sense about it. need? no one really needs a gun at all, they want one and should be able to have one and with that I have no issues....

That would be an example of the popular interpretation of the constitution where someone announces that the constitution doesn't say you can do or have that. Whatever demon 'that' might be.

This interpretation is wrong. The constitution exists to limit government and recognize, not grant, the rights of the people. That if some right or another is not specifically addressed by the constitution does not mean that right does not exist. If you'll examine the 9th and 10th amendments this should become clear.

That being the case you might note that the 2nd amendment states, in part, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There are no exceptions nor special conditions noted . None. Nada. Zip. Zero.

Finally, who gets to be the arbiter to decide what some citizen or another might 'need' or not 'need'? While you may not see any need to own a gun, are you certain you can speak for everyone in this? As previously noted, 'need' almost always is criteria set by others.

Back to the point, deal with the individuals whose wrappings aren't fully tight directly, not by denying or even limiting the rights of everyone else. Doing otherwise reduces this society to its lowest common denominator. A society where normalcy is reduced to the dumbest, poorest, most violent, most physically and/or mentally handicapped, etc.The end points at the bottom rather that what is typical. Not a society in which I'd like to participate.

 

[mark galoob]

the prob is not the guns...the prob here is the monsters that are walking amongst us. if a monster wants to committ mass murder bad enough they will find a way to do it. really you dont need a gun to do dat...oklahoma city, 911, tylenal bottles laced w/ poisen, ied's in mideast...there are lots of ways to committ murder and mayham without firing a shot.


ps, i say boycott cnn till they fire piers morgan

mark galoob

 

[Haakon]

ps, i say boycott cnn till they fire piers morgan

mark galoob

It's funny how quick the 1st amendment is disregarded as soon as the 2nd amendment is questioned, wouldn't you agree?

Or does freedom of speech only apply to us citizens in the us?

 

[mark galoob]

its not about freedom of speech at all, i have no problem with his views. its that he is using his postition as a national newscaster to advance his position. newscasters are supposed to be neutral. if he would have presented a balanced approace to this debate, im all for listening, but he didnt, and he acted very unprofessional, to the point of calling that other guy a stupid man several times, bullying him and being down right rude.

termination of employment for unproffesional behavior...not for his views

mark galoob