Is the Federal Gun Grab over?

[BrianSD_42]

This post has nothing to do with the Federal Gun laws issue, but refers to the idea of having Psychs "lock people up" before they commit a crime.

Originally Posted by M1911:
Some folks here have way too much confidence in psychiatry.

Then JohnnyT said:

All they have to do is be right about 1 person and it would be worth it......and I'm certain they'd have a much better record than that.
1 less lunatic. 1 less senseless killing. 1 less headline. Totally worth it.

Would you agree to have your "civil rights violated" (OMG) and suffer through a mild inconvenience every couple of years if there was a chance it would get us those kids from Newtown back?

This is complete BS logic. If there was a chance .... no even if I knew 100% that I could undo that tragedy by giving up my civil rights I would not. (referring to the right of trial by jury, for committing a crime before being locked up)

I fought for my civil rights (and yours), as did my father, my grandfather and all the other veterans who have served this nation.

I wouldn't give up my civil rights to bring back 10,000 people. What you (JohnnyT) don't get is that our civil rights are the rights of 350 Million Americans and their future children. We are not going to just give them up for a chance at increasing the peace of mind of scared folks like you.

Wow.. scared frightened people like you are the reason why we all have to walk to through body scanners at the airport and have our emails and phones essentially taped by the government. Next you want the government to start locking people up without a trial or crime committed based on what some Physch says ... :smashputer:


BTW, the gun tragedy is a statistical blip when looking at the spectrum of violence in America. 30,000 gun deaths a year but actually 2/3 of them are from suicide. And the remaining amount are mainly from handguns, not assault style semi-automatic rifles. Sure I'm for certain gun laws - we can't have untrained civilians running around with M60s but I recognize the hard numbers.
This is a good source for those following the discussion: http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/02/14/how-to-think-about-guns-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

 

[dhalsey]

This post has nothing to do with the Federal Gun laws issue, but refers to the idea of having Psychs "lock people up" before they commit a crime.



Then JohnnyT said:




This is complete BS logic. If there was a chance .... no even if I knew 100% that I could undo that tragedy by giving up my civil rights I would not. (referring to the right of trial by jury, for committing a crime before being locked up)

I fought for my civil rights (and yours), as did my father, my grandfather and all the other veterans who have served this nation.

I wouldn't give up my civil rights to bring back 10,000 people. What you (JohnnyT) don't get is that our civil rights are the rights of 350 Million Americans and their future children. We are not going to just give them up for a chance at increasing the peace of mind of scared folks like you.

Wow.. scared frightened people like you are the reason why we all have to walk to through body scanners at the airport and have our emails and phones essentially taped by the government. Next you want the government to start locking people up without a trial or crime committed based on what some Physch says ... :smashputer:


BTW, the gun tragedy is a statistical blip when looking at the spectrum of violence in America. 30,000 gun deaths a year but actually 2/3 of them are from suicide. And the remaining amount are mainly from handguns, not assault style semi-automatic rifles. Sure I'm for certain gun laws - we can't have untrained civilians running around with M60s but I recognize the hard numbers.
This is a good source for those following the discussion: http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/02/14/how-to-think-about-guns-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

Well said. I think you hit the nail on the head brian. It is hard to believe that a man would knowing give up his right to defend his family. Those individuals have no experience with firearms and are scared of them. They fear what they don't understand. They are frightened by their inability to defend themselves. They want someone else to be responsible for their safety and well being. There is another way to get rid of your fear Johnnyt. Embrace the fact that this world can be a dangerous place and be prepared for it. Noone will protect your family but you. Embrace your civil rights and vow to defend them. Fear comes from not being prepared.

 

[02SE]

Blah, blah, blah..... You didn't answer my question?

I, for one, would gladly submit to a bit of testing every now and again if it made my friends and neighbors more comfortable and live their lives with less concern.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Benjamin Franklin

 

[mikebontoft]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin is not a reliable source though. All he did was discover the hundred dollar bill.

 

[JohnnyT]

Well said. I think you hit the nail on the head brian. It is hard to believe that a man would knowing give up his right to defend his family. Those individuals have no experience with firearms and are scared of them. They fear what they don't understand. They are frightened by their inability to defend themselves. They want someone else to be responsible for their safety and well being. There is another way to get rid of your fear Johnnyt. Embrace the fact that this world can be a dangerous place and be prepared for it. Noone will protect your family but you. Embrace your civil rights and vow to defend them. Fear comes from not being prepared.

What? Give up my right to defend my family? Something's way wrong here. I'm speaking of and supportive of extensive background checks. I'm also very supportive of everyone possessing as many guns as their little hearts desire.

Yes, I don't have a gun (although considering it) so wouldn't that make me perhaps not scared ENOUGH. Wouldn't the ones WITH the guns be those that live "scared". I'm scared of only 2 things - having my head down when I cross the blue line and leaving my midtown Manhattan office at 3am. Other than that I'm cool with just about anything else. Capice'?

 

[Ol'Blue]

Ok, my .02 now....

What? Give up my right to defend my family? Something's way wrong here. I'm speaking of and supportive of extensive background checks. I'm also very supportive of everyone possessing as many guns as their little hearts desire.

Yes, I don't have a gun (although considering it) so wouldn't that make me perhaps not scared ENOUGH. Wouldn't the ones WITH the guns be those that live "scared". I'm scared of only 2 things - having my head down when I cross the blue line and leaving my midtown Manhattan office at 3am. Other than that I'm cool with just about anything else. Capice'?

Johnny,

I will be objective about this because I'm not one for bashing someone for there view and stance on anything. I fought and almost die doing it like many other's here so you can have this right to express you feelings and any objective criticism that is relevant. Taking a step back and reading everything, I see there is nothing but a clear fallacy in the points you bring up. Some are warranted but clearly not all. Please, I would like to hear your idea/ideas for the most clear path that would bring a balance to the issue at hand.

I know many would agree that the issue is of teaching. All to often gun owners are the problem. All to often it is a lack or properly storing weapons that bring mass destruction. I'm not against better check on people that own firearms, but the issue at hand is how do you control the transfer of sale after the little old lady buys the gun and sells it to her dirt bag son-in law. I have had this discussion in many of my upper level classes right now and I'll be honest I can't come up with a fair and balanced approach to it.

Nothing is going to be fail safe and in the end criminals will still be able to obtain arms from the Mexican Cartels just over the boarders of this great country. With mass amount of regulations it only effects the ones that play by the rules Johnny. In the end it is the crazy mofo with guns that kill people. I have never seen a gun get up and shoot people, ever. I want you to watch this video and think about what Gen. Peter van Hum really talks about and how just the site makes people feel. I hope one day that you will take up the gun as a instrument of peace and stability.

V/R

Blue


Source:

Peter van Uhm: Why I chose a gun - YouTube

 

[JohnnyT]

Johnny,

I will be objective about this because I'm not one for bashing someone for there view and stance on anything. I fought and almost die doing it like many other's here so you can have this right to express you feelings and any objective criticism that is relevant. Taking a step back and reading everything, I see there is nothing but a clear fallacy in the points you bring up. Some are warranted but clearly not all. Please, I would like to hear your idea/ideas for the most clear path that would bring a balance to the issue at hand.

I know many would agree that the issue is of teaching. All to often gun owners are the problem. All to often it is a lack or properly storing weapons that bring mass destruction. I'm not against better check on people that own firearms, but the issue at hand is how do you control the transfer of sale after the little old lady buys the gun and sells it to her dirt bag son-in law. I have had this discussion in many of my upper level classes right now and I'll be honest I can't come up with a fair and balanced approach to it.

Nothing is going to be fail safe and in the end criminals will still be able to obtain arms from the Mexican Cartels just over the boarders of this great country. With mass amount of regulations it only effects the ones that play by the rules Johnny. In the end it is the crazy mofo with guns that kill people. I have never seen a gun get up and shoot people, ever. I want you to watch this video and think about what Gen. Peter van Hum really talks about and how just the site makes people feel. I hope one day that you will take up the gun as a instrument of peace and stability.

V/R

Blue


Source:

Peter van Uhm: Why I chose a gun - YouTube

I watched your video and how it speaks of how the good COD's armed forces protect the vulnerable. He's not an enthusiast. He doesn't "like" guns. They are a very necessary evil. I watched and I totally understand. All seems reasonable and logical. I support guns owned privately, law enforcement, and armed forces. But whats the point of why you wanted me to see the video?

I also support the idea of extensive and recurring background checks for those that own them privately. If a person sells/transfers a gun, they are responsible for it and must transfer its registration, much like I'd guess a vehicle. Since a gun is a deadly weapon, its owner should be subject to background check every 2 or 3 years and random security/storage checks annually. If you can't produce the gun, then you are heavily fined, imprisoned, both, whatever. Sounds like alot of work at great cost, and I'd agree. There are lots of people who will do a fine job putting some kind of program together. Lets consider it a "job creator" thanks to the millions of enthusiasts.

Best of all, everyone can defend themselves and their families and arm every child, aunt, uncle, and grandmother in the house in case of ...... well, I really don't know ..... but I'm sure you'll think of some group or religion you think you need to defend yourself from.

You may not agree with any of this but I really don't care. You asked what I think.

 

[Ol'Blue]

I watched your video and how it speaks of how the good COD's armed forces protect the vulnerable. He's not an enthusiast. He doesn't "like" guns. They are a very necessary evil. I watched and I totally understand. All seems reasonable and logical. I support guns owned privately, law enforcement, and armed forces. But whats the point of why you wanted me to see the video?

I also support the idea of extensive and recurring background checks for those that own them privately. If a person sells/transfers a gun, they are responsible for it and must transfer its registration, much like I'd guess a vehicle. Since a gun is a deadly weapon, its owner should be subject to background check every 2 or 3 years and random security/storage checks annually. If you can't produce the gun, then you are heavily fined, imprisoned, both, whatever. Sounds like alot of work at great cost, and I'd agree. There are lots of people who will do a fine job putting some kind of program together. Lets consider it a "job creator" thanks to the millions of enthusiasts.

Best of all, everyone can defend themselves and their families and arm every child, aunt, uncle, and grandmother in the house in case of ...... well, I really don't know ..... but I'm sure you'll think of some group or religion you think you need to defend yourself from.

You may not agree with any of this but I really don't care. You asked what I think.

Thank you for explaining your views and I have no issue with what you think I was just very unclear and did not understand the point you were trying to make and that is why I asked.

The point of the video is that many have been many made the ultimate scarface for the freedoms that you have in this country. I know it may be hard for some people to put a simple thing like invasion of privacy to some persons death X-amount years ago as what we have today.

The point of the video is that there is a place for arms and for people to have them. Our founding fathers included the right to bear arms. Today people say "it is not needed and it is a way of the past". I ask this, Is it really? A man, just like you and me gave his life to make sure it stay's this way, so why on earth would any one give this freedom up? I would like to hear you ideas on this.

I understand that you do not own firearms, I ask you this. Is there are reason you feel no need for it or do not want them around? This may seems like BS to you but at this time I do not own any firearms but I'm extremely critical of any law restricting anything that has to do with the 2nd Amendment. My home way broken into in the past and they were stolen, my guns. I have not replaced them and before I do I want to invest in a 2ton safe(that and at 5k+ a rifle it is expensive). This way my kids are protected, and do not have to worry about theft again. That and I will not buy a firearm in California because it is none of there business how many round my gun will hold, or how much ammo I buy, or the fact that I can't buy a 50cal in this state because it is too powerful. The gun laws in this state are out of control.

I hope I'm not coming off crude because that is not the point. The point is I have dedicated my life to carrying a firearm and that is what I do of a living. I work in places that you will never want to go ever. I have a hug issue with the government or anyone else telling me that a accessory(aka a Magazine) to a firearm is going to be banded because it holds to many bullets. Well guess what, my life depends on that and it's ability to hold 30-60-120 rounds like some of the Assault Rifle Mags that I use for work. I do not fall under the Police Officer Category or any LEO State or Fed so I do not have special privileges. I'm just like you but I choose to evoke the rights I was granted and hope you will also.

Blue

 

[dhalsey]

I watched your video and how it speaks of how the good COD's armed forces protect the vulnerable. He's not an enthusiast. He doesn't "like" guns. They are a very necessary evil. I watched and I totally understand. All seems reasonable and logical. I support guns owned privately, law enforcement, and armed forces. But whats the point of why you wanted me to see the video?

I also support the idea of extensive and recurring background checks for those that own them privately. If a person sells/transfers a gun, they are responsible for it and must transfer its registration, much like I'd guess a vehicle. Since a gun is a deadly weapon, its owner should be subject to background check every 2 or 3 years and random security/storage checks annually. If you can't produce the gun, then you are heavily fined, imprisoned, both, whatever. Sounds like alot of work at great cost, and I'd agree. There are lots of people who will do a fine job putting some kind of program together. Lets consider it a "job creator" thanks to the millions of enthusiasts.

Best of all, everyone can defend themselves and their families and arm every child, aunt, uncle, and grandmother in the house in case of ...... well, I really don't know ..... but I'm sure you'll think of some group or religion you think you need to defend yourself from.

You may not agree with any of this but I really don't care. You asked what I think.

Johnny. You don't own a firearm. That means when push comes to shove you would not be able to protect yourself or your family.

But you want to own one.

What if someone told you, you couldn't own a gun. Maybe for the reason that someone in your family had a mental illness. Or maybe your mother or father had taken anti depressants at some time in their life.

Would you accept this as a reason for someone to deny "you" your civil liberties?

It is a slippery slope.

 

[bofa]

These threads always have interesting tangents.

I wanted to chime in to add that I too would not want to give up my basic, inherent rights for the sake of security. That Ben Franklin quote was dead on and I used it just the other day while discussing this local teacher that had her 4th graders write that they would give up their rights for additional security.

I do think though that the is a difference between sacrificing rights and sacrificing a bit of convenience, and we deal with that every day already in schools, on airplanes, at sporting venues. I think we just need to find where the value is and determine if its worth doing, both morally and financially.

Also, I saw mention of having a family member with an illness as preventing you from owning a gun yourself. I'm not sure if that was referring to what I posted a few pages ago, but in that case, my opinion would be that you could still own a firearm but that you are ultimately responsible for its well-being and keeping it out of the other person's hands. For example, I think Lanza's mother was well within her rights. Where she went wrong was givin her son access to them (well that and all the other crap he accumulated and some other questionable, but not illegal, parenting decisions).

 

[JohnnyT]

Read this by Augustus Busch IV, the Anheuser-Busch heir and, for years, one of the biggest National Rifle Association advocates. He resigned his "lifetime'' membership in the NRA last week in the wake of the Senatorial inaction, and he wrote this in his resignation letter, among other things, that the NRA was going against the will of its members by hand-grenading the background-check issue. He also wrote in his letter renouncing his NRA membership: "I am simply unable to comprehend how assault weapons and large capacity magazines have a role in your vision. The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was established. Your current strategic focus clearly places priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your four million individual members ... One only has to look at the makeup of the 75-member board of directors, dominated by manufacturing interests, to confirm my point. The NRA appears to have evolved into the lobby for gun and ammunition manufacturers rather than gun owners."

Interested to see how and where Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev acquired the weapons they used to shoot at Watertown, Boston and Massachusetts State Police.

Read More: Darrelle Revis trade from New York Jets to Tampa Bay Buccaneers almost didn't happen - NFL - Peter King - SI.com

 

[bofa]

Read this by Augustus Busch IV, the Anheuser-Busch heir and, for years, one of the biggest National Rifle Association advocates. He resigned his "lifetime'' membership in the NRA last week in the wake of the Senatorial inaction, and he wrote this in his resignation letter, among other things, that the NRA was going against the will of its members by hand-grenading the background-check issue. He also wrote in his letter renouncing his NRA membership: "I am simply unable to comprehend how assault weapons and large capacity magazines have a role in your vision. The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was established. Your current strategic focus clearly places priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your four million individual members ... One only has to look at the makeup of the 75-member board of directors, dominated by manufacturing interests, to confirm my point. The NRA appears to have evolved into the lobby for gun and ammunition manufacturers rather than gun owners."

Interested to see how and where Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev acquired the weapons they used to shoot at Watertown, Boston and Massachusetts State Police.

Read More: Darrelle Revis trade from New York Jets to Tampa Bay Buccaneers almost didn't happen - NFL - Peter King - SI.com

I take it you posted the wrong link?

He is well within his rights to disavow a group in which he maintained voluntary membership. I can tell you, just as is the case in America, he speaks for the minority of NRA members. While I don't agree with everything they support, nor do I appreciate them always asking for more $$$, they serve a purpose and in times like these they are the only real powerhouse that is putting its weight against all out gun control.

Look at the legislation they were trying to pass. Even it if did pass, it was utterly useless and filled with loopholes. It did nothing to address or prevent recent events, specifically Newtown, which was a cornerstone of its creation. Anyone that is sincerely pissed about it not getting passed must not have read the full text and clearly has no understanding of existing regulations. It was so absurd, that I really didn't care if it passed, because when it comes to it, there was no substance at all. Seeing it defeated was just a bonus and seeing all these people whining about it after the fact is amusing.

 

[Jumpkix]

It saddens me to know that regardless of the actions we take, know matter what legislation gets passed or how much we "regulate" firearms, there will always be people in this world who want to hurt and destroy people's lives. No matter what we do, these sinister people will always find a way to inflict pain and suffering on the innocent. It won't stop at pressure cookers, Bushmasters, car bombs, or airplanes. And if you believe the fallacy that denying everyone access to these various instruments of mass killings will stop them, the truth is that it won't. Everyone must realize that there are evil people in this world who simply want to kill innocents without cause, and will stop at nothing to do that. Remove the Second Amendment from our Constitution; take away gun ownership rights entirely and these murderers will find another way.

But I'm thankful to know that our country is full of good people, who truly desire to do good to others. It gives me some optimism when I think about how people like BofA and Blue are good sheperds, who value life and liberty and will defend those values with violence if necessary. I would love to call myself a neighbor to someone like that, and I'm glad to know our country still has plenty of citizens who are willing to sacrifice for the preservation of all of our rights. Although the US has recently had to deal with far too many of these terrible and dark events, each and every time our nation unites in prayer and strength to overcome the grief and to fight for a common cause of good for all of us.

In short, don't touch my freakin' guns or any of my rights or those of others. But regardless of that agenda, I know that America is going to make it. If you don't believe me, turn off CNN once and a while and look around. Good is still happening everywhere.

 

[M1911]

Read this by Augustus Busch IV, the Anheuser-Busch heir and, for years, one of the biggest National Rifle Association advocates. He resigned his "lifetime'' membership in the NRA last week in the wake of the Senatorial inaction, and he wrote this in his resignation letter, among other things, that the NRA was going against the will of its members by hand-grenading the background-check issue. He also wrote in his letter renouncing his NRA membership: "I am simply unable to comprehend how assault weapons and large capacity magazines have a role in your vision.

Johnny:

I'm a life member of the NRA and the Gun Owners' Action League. I'm also a competitor and instructor. I'm a member of two clubs and was Vice President or Director for one of the clubs for more than a dozen years. As a result, I know quite a few gun owners and I think that I have a pretty good understanding of the views of gun owners.

Based on my experience, Mr. Busch's views aren't shared by most gun owners or by most NRA members. The most popular rifle in the United States is an AR-15. Think about that.

The last time that the Democrat's passed an assault weapons ban, they lost control of Congress. Even Bill Clinton said that the passage of that bill was key to the Democrat's losing the next midterm election. At the time, few people owned modern sporting rifles. Now almost every gun owner I know owns at least one. Think about that and think about their reaction if their rifles are banned.

Fudd's like Mr. Busch are around, but they are in the minority and their number is dwindling fast. What they fail to understand is that the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting.

 

[JohnnyT]

It saddens me to know that regardless of the actions we take, know matter what legislation gets passed or how much we "regulate" firearms, there will always be people in this world who want to hurt and destroy people's lives. No matter what we do, these sinister people will always find a way to inflict pain and suffering on the innocent. It won't stop at pressure cookers, Bushmasters, car bombs, or airplanes. And if you believe the fallacy that denying everyone access to these various instruments of mass killings will stop them, the truth is that it won't. Everyone must realize that there are evil people in this world who simply want to kill innocents without cause, and will stop at nothing to do that. Remove the Second Amendment from our Constitution; take away gun ownership rights entirely and these murderers will find another way.

But I'm thankful to know that our country is full of good people, who truly desire to do good to others. It gives me some optimism when I think about how people like BofA and Blue are good sheperds, who value life and liberty and will defend those values with violence if necessary. I would love to call myself a neighbor to someone like that, and I'm glad to know our country still has plenty of citizens who are willing to sacrifice for the preservation of all of our rights. Although the US has recently had to deal with far too many of these terrible and dark events, each and every time our nation unites in prayer and strength to overcome the grief and to fight for a common cause of good for all of us.

In short, don't touch my freakin' guns or any of my rights or those of others. But regardless of that agenda, I know that America is going to make it. If you don't believe me, turn off CNN once and a while and look around. Good is still happening everywhere.

Yup. For every screwed up person, there are a million heroes. Don't lose hope.

 

[JohnnyT]

Johnny:

I'm a life member of the NRA and the Gun Owners' Action League. I'm also a competitor and instructor. I'm a member of two clubs and was Vice President or Director for one of the clubs for more than a dozen years. As a result, I know quite a few gun owners and I think that I have a pretty good understanding of the views of gun owners.

Based on my experience, Mr. Busch's views aren't shared by most gun owners or by most NRA members. The most popular rifle in the United States is an AR-15. Think about that.

The last time that the Democrat's passed an assault weapons ban, they lost control of Congress. Even Bill Clinton said that the passage of that bill was key to the Democrat's losing the next midterm election. At the time, few people owned modern sporting rifles. Now almost every gun owner I know owns at least one. Think about that and think about their reaction if their rifles are banned.

Fudd's like Mr. Busch are around, but they are in the minority and their number is dwindling fast. What they fail to understand is that the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting.

Perhaps, but I'd bet that Mr Buschs views are shared by the majority of gun owners. More owners than you think may simply be passive owners for basic protection (hope i never need to use it type people), not enthusiasts such as yourself.

 

[bofa]

Perhaps, but I'd bet that Mr Buschs views are shared by the majority of gun owners. More owners than you think may simply be passive owners for basic protection (hope i never need to use it type people), not enthusiasts such as yourself.

There's probably no way to easily quantify that but I believe you are incorrect. Not a single gun owner I know agrees with his view and every gun owner I know is, at least at some level, an enthusiast. You have to be in order to understand the gun, know how to use and maintain it, and to be comfortable enough with it to defend yourself. I know people that own a single gun and those that own dozens, and none of them fit what you might imagine as "passive" owners.

 

[Thai]

Perhaps, but I'd bet that Mr Buschs views are shared by the majority of gun owners.

You would lose that bet. I only own 2 handguns (Sig P239 and Ruger SP101) for basic protection. I do carry.

And no, I do NOT share Mr. Buschs views. Even if NRA is so extreme (as you and Mr. Buschs put it), it is still a whole lot better than the crap that comes out of liberal mouths these days. Maybe NRA has to play hardball and go extreme to combat the stupidity from liberals.

 

[JohnnyT]

You would lose that bet. .

Maybe.

Maybe NRA has to play hardball and go extreme to combat the stupidity from liberals.

Ooooo. What do you suggest?

 

[Thai]

Ooooo. What do you suggest?

Well, central NJ resident, I suggest that you follow me more closely on this forum...maybe one day, you will see the errors of your ways. Maybe.

The answer to all this is not more laws (nor even genetic testing!)...it is to enforce EXISTING laws and regulations. We barely have enough people AND funding to enforce existing laws & regs...what makes anyone think that we can enforce MORE laws and regs???? That's utter stupidity from liberals.

Of course, the problem with enforcing the existing laws & regs is that it ain't cool...it ain't a liberal thing. It does not get you re-elected. THAT is the problem.

Oh yeah, you can search for my name and the sources to what I have written above on this forum. I am too tired and pissed off at the b!tch from CUNY...see, I spelled her university correct this time...just for you Johnny boy.