AmericaOverland
Explorer
I'm staying out of this one...
I don't want to :throwcomputer:, as Macs are expensive...
I don't want to :throwcomputer:, as Macs are expensive...
Anti gun legislation
- Thread starter Mr. Leary
- Start date
Dave Bennett
Adventurist
This.
When "punishment" consists of three hots and a cot, a gym, and a free education with access to recreational drugs...
... It's become a bad joke.
xtatik
Explorer
Yes, but overwhelmingly guns seem to be the weapon of choice over a hammer. I hope we can agree on this. I know you're suggesting the overused mantra that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and frankly that is what is most scary about this situation. I know a lot of people who own guns that shouldn't. These are (at least to this point) perfectly law-abiding people. But honestly, they don't harbor an ounce of common sense and are about the worst gun handlers imaginable. So, I completely agree, guns are never the problem...people are definitely the problem, and IMO too many people have easy access to guns. The people I fear the most are those that have some romantic or heroic notion in their heads that they may be able to positively affect a situation such as what happened the other day. At the speed at which these incidences play out, it's a fantasy to think you're going to be Johnny-on-the-spot. People who carry for self defense issues....Ok, that's an issue I can begin to get my head around, but I'm concerned about those who think they may one day become heroes. IMO, these people should not be allowed access to guns. I'm more an advocate of "access control" rather than "gun control", but somehow the gun lobbies just create language that mashes this into being the same thing and from a business POV I can see why. It's because it amounts to restricting their market and ability to sell more guns.
I own guns and I love hunting, but to say that "there is no common sense in any gun control programs".....well, um pardon me, but you're not speaking with common sense. I can't buy a shoulder mounted surface-to-air missile. To me, this makes sense and it's why I, as a gun owner...wouldn't give a bent penny to the NRA. Their "slippery slope" rhetoric doesn't convince me. There is always going to be a threshold that says "you can have this, but you can't have that". The problem with our society is with agreeing or deciding where that line gets drawn.
Scott Brady
Founder
Remember, this is the sportsman's forum, so anti-gun banter would be like asking for a steak in a vegan restaurant.
Remember, our constitution protects our right to bear arms. It is the part of the framework of our nation, good and bad.
Remember, our constitution protects our right to bear arms. It is the part of the framework of our nation, good and bad.
Mr. Leary
Glamping Excursionaire
Believe me, I would love to be a libertarian... I just don't trust people enough to not be stupid and infringe on my rights by endangering me.
I also agree with you that anyone who is truly intent on causing harm to others will find a way to do it, whatever they have. I would just assert that as a law abiding citizen myself, I have no problem with subjecting myself to a couple measures (such as safety classes or legal registration of firearms as a titled entity) that would make it harder to obtain firearms. Most criminals are lazy. If you make it harder for them to get guns by cheating the existing system, they will be forced to obtain them illegally, which can still happen, but at least we have made it a little harder.
Bottom line. Every time these gun tensions boil over or after an incident like what happened in AZ, the gun abolitionists gain ground to restrict the types of firearms that can be owned. I believe this methodology to be false. Do not restrict the guns, rather the people who posess them. All this talk of making assult rifles and high capacity magazines illegal hurts only the law abiding citizens. I have lots of specialized firearms that have been accessorized and modified for particular types of tactical sport shooting. I don't want my guns to be designated as illegal just so we can attempt damage control, when the more effective solution would be to more closely examine who is obtaining the firearms.
Agh... I apologize for starting another thread to debate something we will never be able to solve. I guess I just see these events as tragic fuel for a war that is being waged by people who see the world in black and white.
Last edited:
xtatik
Explorer
Yeah, I know Scott, and thanks for the heads up. But, that same Constitution allows us to discuss the issue and I think there is plenty of room for discussion without challenging fundamental 2A rights. I guess I'm always astounded when any mention of "gun control" or "access control" immediately get construed or dismissed as "anti-gun" or anti-2nd Amendment rhetoric.
I am speaking as a sportsman, and I don't think there should be a narrow definition or assignment given to thought processes for a gun sportsman. At least, I hope not.:Wow1:
Last edited:
xtatik
Explorer
Good lord man, you shouldn't be apologizing. Your last sentence here makes poignant point, and sadly, it's why this issue never get resolved to anyones satisfaction.
Scott Brady
Founder
My comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular. I just want to make sure the discussion stays civil and considerate of the forum this thread is in
paulj
Expedition Leader
That's OK; my view is that a monarchy-culture is too ingrained in British culture and thinking, so I guess we're even.
The monarchy hasn't killed very many people in last hundred years. Plus it is largely symbolic now.
backcountrycruiser
Observer
I know we have the Castle Law in Texas which extends the rights you enjoy at home to your vehicle, but who in their right mind would allow non-permitted concealed carry in a state with (correct me if I'm wrong) gun shows where firearms can be purchased from and by individuals without a background check, no formal documentation for transfer of gun ownership, and no gun safety class requirements?
First no manner of documentation, background check, class or waiting period will prevent a criminal from committing a crime, possesing a firearm or purchasing/theiving firearm. A criminal possesing a firearm is in itself a crime. Conversly a person who has a gun with the INTENT to use it to break the law, and then ACTUALLY uses it in a crime is a criminal. Gun control has no effect on criminals, just lawful people. Criminals carry concealed without a permit all the time:yikes:, and believe it or not, are smart enought to never even apply for one.
First no manner of documentation, background check, class or waiting period will prevent a criminal from committing a crime, possesing a firearm or purchasing/theiving firearm. A criminal possesing a firearm is in itself a crime. Conversly a person who has a gun with the INTENT to use it to break the law, and then ACTUALLY uses it in a crime is a criminal. Gun control has no effect on criminals, just lawful people. Criminals carry concealed without a permit all the time:yikes:, and believe it or not, are smart enought to never even apply for one
. 
robert
Expedition Leader
The left is doing their typical song and dance by laying blame everywhere but on the individual. In this case blame certainly extends to his parents and apparently to the sheriff too. From all indications I've seen the shooter appears to be a paranoid schizophrenic who went off the deep end. With previous episodes having been overlooked by the sheriff and his parents failing to get him the help he obviously needed. People can try to rationalize what he did but if you've ever dealt with a truly delusional person you quickly realize that there is nothing rational at all about their thoughts when they reach a certain point. Nothing makes sense- up is red, grass is root beer, etc. There is nothing that will make sense to the normal person but the psychotic somehow puts the images and or voices in their head into some sort of picture that only they can see.
In this case the young man had been in trouble for drugs and was apparently a user (disqualifying factor for purchasing firearms), had been in trouble with the law but charges were dropped (could have been a disqualifier), had acted out in school and towards others but no restraining orders were issued (would have disqualified him) and had a history of psychiatric illness including making threats which was apparently never followed up on either (would have disqualified him). Because no one followed up on his treatment or arrest(s) he was able to lie on his application and pass a background check.
We could say the system failed him, but it appears his parents failed him by enabling him to reach this point.
He deserves a fair trial as we all would and in his case I feel sure he'll be found incompetent to stand trial and remanded to the care of the state for the rest of his natural life (at taxpayers expense). Maybe, with the proper meds and care, he'll come to realize what he did, but it won't change his status as crazy at the time of the shooting.
And that's why I'm pretty mad at both sides right now- the guy is a nut, plain and simple, they need to stop trying to use the event to advocate for their particular cause. Just a sad situation all around (although I agree it would have been cheaper if the CCW had gotten to him; we put down bad dogs after all).
In this case the young man had been in trouble for drugs and was apparently a user (disqualifying factor for purchasing firearms), had been in trouble with the law but charges were dropped (could have been a disqualifier), had acted out in school and towards others but no restraining orders were issued (would have disqualified him) and had a history of psychiatric illness including making threats which was apparently never followed up on either (would have disqualified him). Because no one followed up on his treatment or arrest(s) he was able to lie on his application and pass a background check.
We could say the system failed him, but it appears his parents failed him by enabling him to reach this point.
He deserves a fair trial as we all would and in his case I feel sure he'll be found incompetent to stand trial and remanded to the care of the state for the rest of his natural life (at taxpayers expense). Maybe, with the proper meds and care, he'll come to realize what he did, but it won't change his status as crazy at the time of the shooting.
And that's why I'm pretty mad at both sides right now- the guy is a nut, plain and simple, they need to stop trying to use the event to advocate for their particular cause. Just a sad situation all around (although I agree it would have been cheaper if the CCW had gotten to him; we put down bad dogs after all).
Hill Bill E.
Oath Keeper
First no manner of documentation, background check, class or waiting period will prevent a criminal from committing a crime, possesing a firearm or purchasing/theiving firearm. A criminal possesing a firearm is in itself a crime. Conversly a person who has a gun with the INTENT to use it to break the law, and then ACTUALLY uses it in a crime is a criminal. Gun control has no effect on criminals, just lawful people. Criminals carry concealed without a permit all the time:yikes:, and believe it or not, are smart enought to never even apply for one
This^^^. Haven't heard of a criminal yet, who is waiting for his permit to carry, so he can go do the drive by/robbery/violence he wants to.
They are criminals, and don't care about any laws on the books
The only deterrent I see, is much stiffer penalties for crimes.
Wyowanderer
Explorer
EXACTLY. Gun control laws affect ONLY the law abiding citizen break the law, and more laws won't make them stop.
Last edited:
Wyowanderer
Explorer
Trouble is, the 2A doesn't protect our right to use firearms for sporting purposes; it protects our right to own guns to throw off a tyrannical government.
And the NRA has never advocated the right of a citizen to own a shoulder fired rocket launcher. That's the job of the JPFO.:sombrero:
backcountrycruiser
Observer
Without question programs like "Project Exile" (introduced and fought for by the NRA and its members) are proven to work. A law that takes a federal prisoner out of his local prison, where he already know everyone and could be a member of a gang in that prison, and sends him to another federal penn in another state. By doing this they issolate the prisoner from his parrent gang or associates. Very few reasons this couldnt be implimented on a state level. Stiffer penalties and ensuring that the penalties are "paid" so to speak, are proven to be way more effective than any gun control. I didnt know that there were so many people on here that support the second. I feel alot more at home.
Mike