OT: Cali Shooting

[elcapitan009]

I don't get why we can't just start now. People keep bringing up Mexico and Chicago as the comparison but those places are struggling because they were crime zones who went cold turkey. How about we compare ourselves to Australia? After the mall massacre they got rid of guns (in a very pro-gun country) and things just went on as normal. Some people argue that gun homicides didn't go down as much as the pro-gun control crowd says but almost nobody argues that it gun homicides went up.

Why can't we have a law that takes away unnecessarily destructive items like assault rifles and phase them out over time? We don't need the drastic right (guns for everyone w/ loopholes) or the drastic left (kicking down doors to confiscate all firearms).

And for those who are brazen enough to say that a civilian could stop a mass shooting, we are not a country full of John McClains. Get over the last action hero mentality. I own multiple firearms and I know how to use them. If a shooting starts happening, realize that there will be chaos. Now realize that you are not the only person with a gun. Now realize that you now do not know who is a good/bad guy since you all have guns. So what do you do? Start firing on someone who is firing on others? (This could be another John McClain shooting at a terrorist) Open fire on the first person you see who has a gun drawn? (Another possible John McClain). Shoot anyone who looks like a Muslim? (Shouldn't even have to address this)

Bad people get weapons yes but the mentally unstable are not networked people and that's the majority of who does mass shootings.

 

[elcapitan009]

Agreed scholtz, in a utopia this would be the best. But we all agree this isn't a utopia. So we are left with two (as I see it) options that we can choose from:

1. Buy back and confiscate program like Australia did a few years back. If you own a gun it has to stay AT the gun club at all times.
Problem: criminals will still be able to get weapons via mexico or possibly Canada. Those of us with guns at the gun club are helpless out in public if some criminal does decide to go Paris on us.
2. Leave things as is and require all gun purchases be registered by FFL dealers--- including gun shows.
Problem: most mass shootings are done by people with clean records or no priors.

The president said this guy was on the no fly list scholtz, yet he went to suadi Arabia and packistan anyway and brought back his "wife and child". So even if the president isn't mistaken, and this guy WAS on the no fly list, the list didn't stop him...... the law didn't stop him. So it appears even IF all guns are registered, as this guy was registered not to fly, it won't always work.

Does that make sense man?

In response
1. So criminals don't still get weapons in Australia? Statistics have shown that, at worst, the gun homicides remained the same while, at best, they are nearly eliminated compared to pre-96. (I had a really hard time trying to figure out how to punctuate that sentence...it's not an appositive phrase, but I want a pause there damn it)
2. It's an easy start and can get rid of at least some troublemakers. Why NOT do it?
3. Yeah but something is better than nothing. Besides that, you're saying the TSA is on top of their job? Last time I checked, that is a joke of an organization that was started to convince the citizen they are safer than pre-9/11 (which they are most definitely not).

 

[clob94]

Agreed. The mentally unstable. I was hoping scholtz would lock in on this but I'm sure he's got a million thoughts going on in his head right now, as we all do. But you're correct sir. The mentally unstable have been, by in large, those most responsible for mass shootings here in America. I don't mean mass shootings that are gang related that comprise most of the "355" mass shootings this year thus far. Those don't make the news for political reasons and, let's be honest, two gang bangers in LA or Chicago that perform a drive by is old news. That was an 80's topic. Back to the mentally unstable:

I would be willing to bet you, good money, that if you went back and looked at the last 15-20 mass shootings that were huge headlines; the black church, candy hook etc.... I would be willing to bet you at some point or another these people were on some sort of meds. Psychological meds I mean. Now I'm not saying everyone on prozac is crazy, don't jump to that conclusion. But, many people NEED these meds to remain stable, and far more are prescribed them that don't need them.
Each of us is a walking chemistry lab. Our bodies are very similar, but also very different in terms of our chemical balances. I believe that people get on or off of these sort of meds and that causes a tipping point in their minds.

I'm willing to go out on a limb and say this. I really believe I may be right. Is there anyway to find out if these people did have prescriptions to psychotropic drugs of some sort?

 

[clob94]

Elcapitain, I see your point but as you said, the TSA (a government run entity) had a guy on the no fly list who went to the middle east on (what cnn is reporting) three occasions. Ok, once, I get it.... "ooops our bad" says the TSA. Twice, ehhhhhh, maybe the government list just sucks. Three times? Ya. Case closed, typical federal government run program.

The two GREAT things our government does is crap on the constitution (both the left and right) and kill enemies. We can kill people in ways that seemed like science fiction two decades ago. We can listen to your phone calls and read your emails (4th ammendment violation) and kill your a$$ like no other country.

So, even though all my guns are registered, and this guy was on the no fly list, am I supposed to TRUST this government (both left and right) to always do the right thing and keep me safe if I surrender my means of protecting myself? I'm sorry elcapitain, I just can't do that. I do not trust the powers that be to look out for me at all times. I do not need, nor want it. I suffered through multiple concussions in high school and college and I know one day my mind will fail me. That's the only reason I would ever get rid of my weapons. Not because they told me everything would be OK because they will protect me.

 

[clob94]

All you muh fuggas in here and not one of you knows somebody that knows Pamela Brown?? Wtf??

 

[TX1972]

Agreed. The mentally unstable. I was hoping scholtz would lock in on this but I'm sure he's got a million thoughts going on in his head right now, as we all do. But you're correct sir. The mentally unstable have been, by in large, those most responsible for mass shootings here in America. I don't mean mass shootings that are gang related that comprise most of the "355" mass shootings this year thus far. Those don't make the news for political reasons and, let's be honest, two gang bangers in LA or Chicago that perform a drive by is old news. That was an 80's topic. Back to the mentally unstable:

I would be willing to bet you, good money, that if you went back and looked at the last 15-20 mass shootings that were huge headlines; the black church, candy hook etc.... I would be willing to bet you at some point or another these people were on some sort of meds. Psychological meds I mean. Now I'm not saying everyone on prozac is crazy, don't jump to that conclusion. But, many people NEED these meds to remain stable, and far more are prescribed them that don't need them.
Each of us is a walking chemistry lab. Our bodies are very similar, but also very different in terms of our chemical balances. I believe that people get on or off of these sort of meds and that causes a tipping point in their minds.

I'm willing to go out on a limb and say this. I really believe I may be right. Is there anyway to find out if these people did have prescriptions to psychotropic drugs of some sort?

Those gang related mass shootings would be greatly reduced by marijuana legalization. In the early 30's the murder rate fell by 70% after Prohibition ended.

 

[clob94]

TX1972 I won't dispute that. But right now we have to solve the world's problems one at a time bud. One at a time.

 

[swVAHorn]

TX1972 I won't dispute that. But right now we have to solve the world's problems one at a time bud. One at a time.

 

[TX1972]

Alarming as this was, the Islamists will never be the threat that godless atheistic red bolshevism was. I will never forgive the Rosenbergs for what they did. They made us all duck and cover at school. I can't remember how many nukes the Russians had at their peak. Israel has nukes developed in conjunction with South Africa. If Iran gets close enough, look for Israel to use theirs first.

 

[txn_in_wa]

I agree with universal background checks......hell I would be for taking a polygraph that I don't plan on killing anyone....I enjoy target shooting, I don't even go hunting and have not gone for years.....I love target shooting....some love golf etc...I like shooting. I would register my guns....no problem.

you can't buy a gun without background check at a gunshow in VA.

I have been reading this thread and seen some very interesting points, on both sides. I am all for Universal Background checks on every gun sold. In fact, I had background checks when I bought my handguns, not only at the store, but at gun shows. When I bought my first gun, there was a used bullet with the gun. When I asked what that was for, they told me that Ruger had another bullet that was fired from my gun so that when it was registered, if for whatever reason, it fell into the wrong hands, they could use it to identify the gun it was fired from, which would potentially lead back to me because when I bought it, it was and still is registered to me. I was happy to provide a background check not only for my guns, but for my conceal/carry license. Criminals won't do this. Trying to make it mandatory is great, but how do you make a person who wants to sell his gun on the side to a criminal do a background check? Registering them can help, but it won't stop the "under the table" gun sales. Heck, there are people still in Kentucky making moonshine and selling it illegally. You can't stop the people who don't respect the law and choose to break it.

I guess my question is, what good are background checks if people who are on a no fly list can buy guns? What is the purpose of the background check if we allow this? At what point in the background check do you deny someone to purchase a gun?

 

[TXSFRED]

Help me understand, please?

So, some radical islamists plan another terrorist act like he cowards they are and they murder innocent Americans, at least 14 of them. Now, don't seem to matter how they did it, even though they used guns, they could have used bombs, as they often do.

But, since they pulled this off, again, now, you anti gun boys want the government to come in and take away my rights, an American Citizen, to own an assault rifle which I choose to own under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America? Now, what did I do to deserve this, please explain it to me, will ya?

Just like after 9-11, now my wife, daughter and grandma have to be frisked, stand in long lines, be treated like criminals, every time they fly on an airplane, by the government, because of the criminal, cowardly acts of these murdering islamist jihadists?

And the answer you think is to disarm more innocent Americans? And you want this government run by this fool president, who is allowing these unwanted illegals to swarm through our borders, criminals, terrorists and all, and is pushing to bring ISIS in with boat loads of refugees from the war torn middle east, and he is gonna take care of me and my family since I don't have a weapon to protect myself any longer? Yeah, uhhuh, you can bet I believe and trust that to happen.

Have you ever considered this is what these terrorists want to happen?

See, these cowards come to my house or my street or my grandchildrens school and try to pull some of that murderous crap against innocents, and I am gonna shoot their ass to hell and back with my weapons of choice, or die trying.

You boys better start getting your thinking cap on right, cause taking more rights away from American citizens because of these murderers isn't the answer. The only thing protecting us from all these fools is the fact we own so many guns as private Americans, and I mean law abiding citizens. That, and the fact we have the protection of the policemen of America who are willing to give their lives so we can live a normal and safe life. Even though, a lot of the socially smart PC folks are trying to dissolve the trust Americans have in our law enforcement folks.

And we will never and must never allow this to happen and be able survive as free people on this earth.

*********************************************************************************************************************************
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, as a young Officer in the Imperial Japanese Navy had served as Military attache in the US. He saw the size of our country and the beginnings of the Industrial greatness forming here. As they ordered him to plan the attack on Pearl Harbor, he advised them that he would "run wild across the Pacific for 6 months" after a successful Pearl attack but could guarantee nothing after that due to the industrial might that would be incited against him by any attack...but especially by a sneak attack. Another telling comment he made at that time was this: "DO not ever think idly of attacking the Mainland USA . There will be a rifle behind EVERY blade of grass!"

Now let's take a look at our "industrial might." It has been turned into " industrial maybe not" by tax and spend feds driving industry off the mainland with over regulation AND taxation. I watched the Fred Hartman Bridge at Baytown take two (if not three) times as long to build because all the steel for the bridge was made overseas and did not fit or was not up to the quality specified - when it was shipped over here - with this delay occurring with a US Steel plant shut down, all employees sent away, rusting to pieces almost at the site... and me waiting to use the bridge.

Of course, there is still "a rifle behind every blade of grass"...and that may be the only thing that keeps the enemy from getting froggy, folks. You lefties that think it is a good idea to take up the guns and disarm law abiding citizens because 1.) the leading forces of the enemy is already here... or 2.) some crazy nut among us acts up - should probably expect to see some company coming soon after a successful gun grab by POTUSBHO or those of his ilk. You will find "they" do not have your best interest at heart. Anyone who does not see that isn't qualified on World History OR you're just willfully ignorant. ( Notice I said willfully- those who want my guns know exactly what their end game is...)

 

[txn_in_wa]

Agreed. The mentally unstable. I was hoping scholtz would lock in on this but I'm sure he's got a million thoughts going on in his head right now, as we all do. But you're correct sir. The mentally unstable have been, by in large, those most responsible for mass shootings here in America. I don't mean mass shootings that are gang related that comprise most of the "355" mass shootings this year thus far. Those don't make the news for political reasons and, let's be honest, two gang bangers in LA or Chicago that perform a drive by is old news. That was an 80's topic. Back to the mentally unstable:

I would be willing to bet you, good money, that if you went back and looked at the last 15-20 mass shootings that were huge headlines; the black church, candy hook etc.... I would be willing to bet you at some point or another these people were on some sort of meds. Psychological meds I mean. Now I'm not saying everyone on prozac is crazy, don't jump to that conclusion. But, many people NEED these meds to remain stable, and far more are prescribed them that don't need them.
Each of us is a walking chemistry lab. Our bodies are very similar, but also very different in terms of our chemical balances. I believe that people get on or off of these sort of meds and that causes a tipping point in their minds.

I'm willing to go out on a limb and say this. I really believe I may be right. Is there anyway to find out if these people did have prescriptions to psychotropic drugs of some sort?

As someone who has been involved in the pharmaceutical industry for over 20 years, I can assure meds are not necessarily the answer to mental issues. Can they help? Yes. Do they for everyone. No. There is a reason why almost all psychiatric drugs carry a warning that taking them can lead to suicidal thoughts (as well as other bad thoughts). Is it because pharmacologically they do this? According to psychiatrists I have talked to, probably not. These people are unstable to start with and drugs are not necessarily the answer. But the FDA requires this because probably one person on Prozac committed suicide or some other heinous act. We need to address the mental health side of this issue with more than just meds.

 

[txn_in_wa]

I have been reading this thread and seen some very interesting points, on both sides. I am all for Universal Background checks on every gun sold. In fact, I had background checks when I bought my handguns, not only at the store, but at gun shows. When I bought my first gun, there was a used bullet with the gun. When I asked what that was for, they told me that Ruger had another bullet that was fired from my gun so that when it was registered, if for whatever reason, it fell into the wrong hands, they could use it to identify the gun it was fired from, which would potentially lead back to me because when I bought it, it was and still is registered to me. I was happy to provide a background check not only for my guns, but for my conceal/carry license. Criminals won't do this. Trying to make it mandatory is great, but how do you make a person who wants to sell his gun on the side to a criminal do a background check? Registering them can help, but it won't stop the "under the table" gun sales. Heck, there are people still in Kentucky making moonshine and selling it illegally. You can't stop the people who don't respect the law and choose to break it.

I guess my question is, what good are background checks if people who are on a no fly list can buy guns? What is the purpose of the background check if we allow this? At what point in the background check do you deny someone to purchase a gun?

Just to add, and I am not sure how it is in other states, but the first time I was ever fingerprinted was here in Indiana when I applied for my conceal/carry. I might regret that one day , but I have nothing to hide.

 

[swVAHorn]

Just to add, and I am not sure how it is in other states, but the first time I was ever fingerprinted was here in Indiana when I applied for my conceal/carry. I might regret that one day , but I have nothing to hide.

Guys like us have no intention of doing a crime. That is why we don't mind fingerprints, background checks and so on.

 

[Scholz]

You said you were "well read" and yet you say "nobody anywhere ever" has said to take up all the guns. Read more then. Many people have said and believe this.

Link?

 

[topdecktiger]

From a pure legal perspective, it's not really that simple. The 2nd Amendment, just like every other Amendment, is not self-defining. Interpretation is everything. The 2nd Amendment has only been read as protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms since 2008 (for federal enclaves) and 2010 (for states); fifty years ago, jurists across the ideological spectrum scoffed at that notion as an utter absurdity.

That's the state of the law now, but even Heller and McDonald recognize as "presumptively lawful" regulations on ownership far more restrictive than those that most Americans are bound by today. If you're talking about an outright, total ban on individual ownership (which is not going to happen, even if a future Court were to overturn Heller and McDonald), then, yes, given the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment since 2008 (and 2010), a constitutional amendment would presently be required. But no significant numbers of people or politicians are calling for a total ban (or anything close to one). And, the NRA's insistence to the contrary notwithstanding, none of the standard, mainstream proposed legislative gun ownership restrictions would be at risk of running up against recognized constitutional barriers -- unless a future Court accords the 2nd Amendment a substantially more expansive interpretation than the one currently in effect.

(My position on guns is fairly idiosyncratic for someone of my political persuasion, as I enjoy shooting and collecting a wide range of handguns as a hobby and am a CHL holder, and what I'm saying here is not meant as an argument either way on gun control. I'm just pointing out that, legally speaking, the NRA's and other gun rights groups' fairly absolutist positions are just a few among a large number of possible arguments and interpretations -- and they're really not even close to reflective of the present state of constitutional law. Legal advocacy groups on all sides of issues present their views as legal fact because that's just smart political strategy when you're pushing a view that hasn't actually been accepted as law.)

That's not the point I was making. What I was talking about is that 2nd Amendment, regardless of how you want to interpret it, makes it harder for the U.S. government to impose restrictions on firearms, as opposed to other countries. What I was telling the other poster is that for the U.S. to have stricter gun control laws, like other countries, it's going to take an amendment, rather than simple Congressional legislation, to get where he wants to be.

 

[clob94]

Just got home from wasselfest, it's a new braunfels tradition to gather downtown drink German style warm cider (wassel) and I watched an interview with Patrick baccari, a man in his fifties that, with tears in his eyes said he wishes he or someone around him would have been carrying a gun. "I believe every citizen here should be armed..... but that's not ever ones belief". "I couldn't have defended anybody from the position I was in...... but at least if they'd tried to come get us in that restroom I'd of had some way of maybe protecting the rest of us."

 

[swVAHorn]

Link?

You said that no one ever has said to take all the guns......You provided no proof.
But when someone tells you that in fact there are people (quick google will show) who want to take all guns.....you want proof.
Give and you shall receive. Show me no one ever has said it and I will pull the links over here for you that some have in fact said it.

hint: View, Feinstein etc.
According to the Dept of justice the gun that kills the most people every year in the U.S. is large caliber revolvers. Why aren't you trying to ban them since they in fact kill more than any other gun?

Like I said you want to be right because you don't enjoy shooting sports, and you can't understand why anyone would. I want something done to save lives as well, it is a people issue not a gun issue. I am usually in agreement with you on many issues on here...mostly because I hate far right (most people on here) or far left politics....but maybe you are farther left than I thought.

Don't ask someone for proof of anything if you aren't giving proof yourself man.

 

[Scholz]

OK. I'm not advocating taking all guns though. I was over the top with my description of nobody ever debating it ever. I will say I haven't seen a serious discussion about that though. Don't think that would ever happen.

 

[TexExSpur]

I wonder how many of the mass "shootings", terrorist attack in Cali...have taken place in BLUE states.

The latest is Cali:

The State of California

Banned Assault Weapons
Is a "May Issue" state for concealed carry
Limits Mag capacity to 10 rounds or less
Does not allow open carry of any firearm
Requires background checks for all sales at gun shows (no loop hole)
Requires background checks for every firearm purchase
Requires a minimum 10 day waiting period for the purchase of a firearm


Strictest in the country and folks think more laws will stop mass shootings.

These two people broke law after law before committing their heinous act.

 

[Scholz]

Like I said you want to be right because you don't enjoy shooting sports, and you can't understand why anyone would.

Military style assault rifles aren't needed for that sort of thing.

I want something done to save lives as well, it is a people issue not a gun issue.

Fundamental disagreement here. You can't kill dozens of people in a couple of minutes with a knife.

 

[TexExSpur]

 

[TexExSpur]

Military style assault rifles aren't needed for that sort of thing.


Fundamental disagreement here. You can't kill dozens of people in a couple of minutes with a knife.

I'm a 3gun competitor... I'll gladly keep my tactical gear.

 

[swVAHorn]

Military style assault rifles aren't needed for that sort of thing.


Fundamental disagreement here. You can't kill dozens of people in a couple of minutes with a knife.

Have you ever went target shooting with an AR? or done a 3 gun comp? It is a LOT of fun. I hurt no one, I will NEVER hurt anyone....unless I am in the right and must protect myself or someone else. If they take all semiauto weapons the people that want to do mass killings will use something else....ie Tim McVeigh. Yes I know it would make it harder and more planning would be required. I even understand what you are meaning and you don't want people to be killed easily. We just disagree on HOW to do that. If every person knew the people they were going to attack had the same or better weapons than them....would they be so quick to go shoot up someplace? I just don't want something taken from me that I enjoy and I don't hurt anyone else. That is not what our country should be about.

Cigarettes kill more than guns.....it cost us all more in our insurance premiums to let cigarettes be legal...I hate cigarettes.....I still think they should be legal.

Like I said we agree on many many issues. Not taking my ARs though. I believe in background checks, register the guns, heck I would take a polygraph when I buy the weapons and randomly that I am not planning any bad things with my guns......I have been shooting since before elementary school. It is one of my favorite hobbies besides watching the Texas Longhorns.

I do think you are entitled to your opinion though and I don't think you are stupid for having it. It is what you think would save lives. That is not something to take lightly.

 

[TexExSpur]

I wonder how many CHL holders we have on this thread.

 

[oldschoolcat]

It is my understanding that pipe bombs and IED's are illegal already. Bad people got them and would likely have used them if they could have.

The fundamental disagreement is that bad people don't follow laws.....they only affect the law abiding. Let's stop punishing those who do nothing, and protecting the criminals and terrorists.

 

[elcapitan009]

Just got home from wasselfest, it's a new braunfels tradition to gather downtown drink German style warm cider (wassel) and I watched an interview with Patrick baccari, a man in his fifties that, with tears in his eyes said he wishes he or someone around him would have been carrying a gun. "I believe every citizen here should be armed..... but that's not ever ones belief". "I couldn't have defended anybody from the position I was in...... but at least if they'd tried to come get us in that restroom I'd of had some way of maybe protecting the rest of us."

Okay? That French guy who lost his bride also came out and said he will not give in to hating the people that shot up Paris. Sandy Hook parents begged for more gun control after their children were shot Let's not use one emotional response to persuade what should be a logical argument.

You're saying it's better to have no gun control at all then to have it in the government hands? I don't understand your stance? You'd rather eliminate background checks completely? Because that's currently a government program. Ain't no private entity taking care of that (because they wouldn't). In your mind, clob, what is okay for civilians (aka possibly your racist ahole neighbor) to own? Assault rifles? Grenades? Chainsaw arms? Sharks with frickin lasers?

I just can't comprehend how people assume no control is better than some control because "some bad people will still get guns." I mean what world are you living in? Bars still sell alcohol after closing. People still hire illegal aliens to do manual labor for them. Weed is still on the streets. Yes, things slip through the cracks but that doesn't mean we should just go carte blanche on the approach.

If you listen to a large population of the group that is VERY into their guns, you get "the enemy is here" and "muslim president" diatribe. These people are so mentally unstable, I'm more scared of the fact that THEY have firearms. They are just waiting for a reason to pull them out.

Can we progress as a society and start small? Close gunshow loophole? Why can't we do that? Just ONE thing. We're not in the wild west anymore guys. Today is the best day to be alive in history. Tomorrow will be better. The "good old days" are just something old men say who can't move on with the rest of the world.

 

[oldschoolcat]

I wonder how many CHL holders we have on this thread.

My wife is....I am not. Yet. But don't try and car jack me.

 

[Scholz]

Have you ever went target shooting with an AR? or done a 3 gun comp? It is a LOT of fun.

No I haven't but I hear you. I don't doubt it.

Like I said we agree on many many issues. Not taking my ARs though...I do think you are entitled to your opinion though and I don't think you are stupid for having it. It is what you think would save lives. That is not something to take lightly.

Appreciate it and I respect your opinion too and I agree we're very sympatico on most issues here. This is simply an issue that well meaning, reasonable people can disagree on in good faith.

I'll leave it at this, I find it ridiculous that the NRA has such a stranglehold on our government that that we can't even get very minimal universal background checks brought up for a vote much less passed when 92% of Americans want that. The NRA has so much power that no fly list terrorists can buy any gun they want. I don't have a high opinion of Wayne Lapierre.

 

[Scholz]

The fundamental disagreement is that bad people don't follow laws...

So why have any laws?

 

[elcapitan009]

It is my understanding that pipe bombs and IED's are illegal already. Bad people got them and would likely have used them if they could have.

The fundamental disagreement is that bad people don't follow laws.....they only affect the law abiding. Let's stop punishing those who do nothing, and protecting the criminals and terrorists.

No? Bad people break laws. Making a law does not guarantee safety. Auto thefts happen. Rapes happen. Murders happen. Why not get rid of ALL laws if you assume that? Both yours and mine are straw man at best.

I'm in O&G. Layoffs everywhere. Know what's coming with them? Police babysitting lobby and parking lots when they do massive ones. They are THAT afraid of a disgruntled worker coming back.

My hope for the longterm future is that the disgruntled worker does not have easy access to firearms regardless of a clear background check. If the guy in the office next to you has a contact with someone who can get him heroin, then maybe you would have to worry about them acquiring a black market handgun.

My hope for the near future is closing the gunshow loophole. It's an easy route for unqualified people to get firearms.

 

[TexExSpur]

So why have any laws?

Gotta have a reason to pay for them to live in prison.

 

[bubba2023]

The argument against universal background checks is illogical. Of course where there is a will there is a way, but that's not a reason to not make something illegal. Do you guys realize how laws work? You don't justify their existence by their ability to stop something from happening. Laws aren't physical barriers they are mental barriers.

 

[clob94]

Elcapitan, you made me laugh dude. You've gotta admit though, sharks with freakin lasers would be awesome!!!

As I said earlier, I have registered every gun I've ever bought or sold. I have zero problem with that I also have zero problem with requiring it at gun sows as well. I've honestly never been to a gun show that didn't require you to go through a back ground check. Every gun I've ever bought at a gun show I had to go over to the side and present my drivers license and sit through the process. With that said:

I think, I truly believe, that responsible gun ownership boils down to understanding a few simple things. First, gun safety. Second, when to brandish your weapon as a show of defense (legally and responsibly). And 3rd, when it is appropriate to use force (last resort). So long as you could promise me that those three rules were understood by all gun owners, I think everyone sleeps better at night.

With that said, we both know it's not a reality. I would also be in favor of making sure that people diagnosed with mental disorders are not allowed to buy a gun (Sandy hook). But we both know that won't work because momma or daddy will just buy the gun and give it to the person (also Sandy hook). Also, who gets to define what a mental disorder is? Is it anyone that's ever had a bout with depression? Well heck, that's everyone. I've been sad before. I never took meds for it but, we all get depressed at some point in our life. It's called LIFE. Do we say that you've had to have been treated by a psychological professional in order to not buy a gun? Does that rule me out because I went to see a grief counselor for a few months after my dad died? It's like hanging out of a window of a moving truck hauling a$$ down a dirt road and trying to hit a moving target. It's so difficult to define what the parameters are that constitute "proper gun laws".

With regard to the French, lovely people, lovely country. But they're france. We're Texas. And though I am an American, I was born and raised a Texan, and in this culture I was taught how to shoot and be responsible with regard to guns. I get that not everyone had that form of upbringing. And perhaps that's why I see things the way I do.

For me, the grandson of German immigrants, I remember hearing stories told by my grandfather about how the Nazi regime went through and systematically disarmed the sector of the population it wished to punish. Those stories are still fresh in my mind. And forgive me, but at the whisper of a government, any government, that tries to better control or grasp for more control, over its populace, my warning light starts to blink. Government control over its citizens for nefarious reasons is as old as mankind itself. Why is our government above such things? The truth is, they aren't. And I think many people are leary of starting down that road for fear of where it might end up. Remember when the Internet first got big? How cool was that? Now we live in an age where the post I'm typing right now will be stored in a government Metadata center to be reviewed and scrutinized to insure I'm not making threats or to be used against me at a later date should I ever commit an act of terrible violence. That's a violation of the constitution. 4th ammendment to be exact. If they will trample that right, that BASIC right, what's to prevent them from setting their sights on other basic rights?

 

[elcapitan009]

Clob, I try. I want this to remain unlocked and figure humor diffuses any bile building between posts.

I want baby steps. I'm not saying to break down your doors and take away your weapons; I just want some baby steps.

But surely the French owned firearms before? Unless I'm incorrect, I'd assume they had access to guns before legislation took it away. Australians also believed they had the right to own guns due to their history and culture. It's just a matter of changing minds. I grew up with firearms and learning responsibility but we have to progress. If you think you should have the right to certain actions or items because of your culture, why do we not allow duels anymore?

Also, to say that the German population would have stood in opposition to the Nazi regime had they had weapons is the absolute best case scenario. There were already strict gun control laws in effect and the Jews were such a small population that the common German person would not fight for them against a coordinated Nazi army. And let us not forget that the majority of Germans allowed or agreed with the systematic killings of Jews. Those that didn't may have stayed to fight but most tried to stay low or flee the country. I'd be more concerned with how the propaganda made it seem like Jews were less than their German counterparts and responsible for all that was bad in Germany. If you want to be worried about repeating history, turn on Fox News and watch how they frame Muslims.

I agree that I don't want government interference in my daily life. I'm for legalizing drugs, prostitution, polygamy etc... because it increases the economy, reduces crime and it doesn't interfere with my life. I would much rather take the risk of a terrorist organization bombing my house than have the government monitor my daily activity.