BS: Shooting tragedies and guns

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 11:18 PM

Leave the guns alone. Combat mental illness.
If you're not from the U.S., worry about things in your own backyard.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: gnu
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 11:01 PM

It's me... I'm back because this is just sOOOO inane in many ways but very important (sue me). Sooooo, are youse keen to write Amendment 2a? I posted my proposal. Post yours. What would you write in the next amendment?

WE, the peeps, are pissed and we... ???

Is that an odd request?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 10:56 PM

You CAN ban... or severely limit... commercially mass-produced ammo. And for many types, VERY few will be able to melt enuf lead and obtain the powder necessary to amass the huge stock some of these nuts collect.

10) (almost forgot) restrict easy access to casings and black powder

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: olddude
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 10:23 PM

ya can't ban bullets, guys like me make our own, melt down tire lead and reload or swag our own jacketed bullets. Guys who shoot a lot and I do, reload their own. even if you ban that, most people have the equipment and primers and power to last the next 20 years .. that won't work.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: olddude
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 10:21 PM

damn near everything you said Bill is already on the books. If you try to buy a weapon and you are a convicted felon, yup the licensed dealer is required to report it ... other than the assault ban which we did have a few years ago there is little new in your suggestion. Why doesn't it work, well private sales are not required to have a BG check and the gun show loophole makes that a reality. Hence it is all negated. Like I said plug the hole in the dam and then the 27,000 laws will make sense that we already have

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 10:20 PM

Perhaps Fox is consulting the NRA about what to say... he said cynically.

------------------------------

Now, let me clarify what my draconian suggestions would NOT include.

If you were a farmer in Kansas who kept a .22 rifle to shoot vermin near your barn, you would likely have NO trouble getting your permit okayed.

If you were a rancher in Wyoming who sometimes needed and even more powerful rifle to deal with predators... it would probably be routine for YOU to submit forms and be approved.

If you live in the West Virginia mountains (as a friend on mine does)and often supplement your diet with venison, of course you may have the *necessary* firearms..(DO buy the permits)

If you collect antique firearms and have relevant permits... no problem.

If you are a licensed private investigator who sometimes encounters dangerous situations, and are sometimes threatened in the line of your work, it is 'likely' that you can keep your sidearms... if you have complied with all relevant laws.

A good proportion of hunters... who do not claim the need to 'hunt' with semi-auto AR-15s and such... are likely to be allowed to continue hunting... birds, deer, etc.... just refer to the rules 1-9.

I am NOT....yet... suggesting we deny those uses. I only assert that the definitions of 'need' as to firearms needs to be tightened a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: John P
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 10:06 PM

Kendal says, "John P my IQ is 140. whats yours?"

I don't know. I don't think it's pertinent to this discussion. Why do you? Is there any chance you could actually respond to the things I said, rather than trying to say you're smarter than me? When I posted a list of laws I would like to see, none of which exist yet, your response was to say they already exist. What's IQ got to do with it?

Everything I've seen you write previous to this discussion has made me think you're an intelligent and honorable person. Can you understand how frustrating it is to try to have a rational discussion on a topic, only to have you respond with really old and tired bumper-sticker slogans? "There's plenty of laws on the books, but criminals ignore them" and "guns don't kill people, people kill people". I believe you are really smart, but you don't seem to be bringing your brains to this discussion.

How about if you go back and read what I really said, and then really respond to it? Perhaps we could take my points one at a time. Let's start with the fact that a gun in the home is four times more likely to be used on a friend or family member than on an armed intruder. What do you think we should do about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 09:55 PM

Well, surprise, surprise. FOX news has said its broadcasters/reporters will NOT discuss gun control in the wake of the Newtown murders. Another heroic news organization at work.

So, the first amendment ain't but the second amendment is? Gotta love them.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 09:22 PM

The last time there was BIG outcry... after the shooting of Gabby Giffords, the NRA did just that... refused to comment and answer questions while everyone bewailed the poor victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 09:19 PM

Yeah. Real stalwart defenders of America's freedoms.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 09:01 PM

The NRA is not stupid... they know when to lay low & hope things settle down.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 08:31 PM

Seems the NRA has been unavailable for comment. Likewise with Republican supporters of the NRA. Wonder why that is?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 08:21 PM

And we should use the guillotine on all firearms offenders.
=(:-( o)

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 08:12 PM

Something important for your list, Bill:
Limit the amount of ammunition one can buy and legally posess.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Jack Campin
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 08:01 PM

[Kendall]
Jack, I'm still waiting for that apology.

What fucking apology? You knowingly repeated a bunch tired and often-refuted NRA propaganda you had been shown to be bollocks a couple of hours before, making no effort whatever to check any of it.

You aren't just a liar, you have to rehash other people's lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 08:00 PM

"Should people from other countries mind their own business?"

On an international forum? Dream on.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 07:59 PM

Henry,

The .223 (or 5.56 mm) is legal in my state but it is not allowed for deer hunting in some states.

If you are a good shot or get close enough, almost any gun will take down a deer.

My grandfather used a 25-20 made in about 1895, but that was a long time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 07:58 PM

I will add:
8)Any gun store which needs to deny a sale for any reason, must REPORT the attempted buy to authorities.

9)I would create a national database of owners, serial numbers of ALL guns and all those who use weapons in crimes... and perhaps more. This might be the easiest idea to pursue. Perhaps some of it already exists.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 07:50 PM

Mister PDQ... I WILL "drag you into" the ongoing debate...by name.. when it is you who is carrying the banner for just accepting the status quo and letting such crucial issues be decided and influenced by outmoded concepts.
If you wish to just read from the sidelines, now that you have "said all that needed to be said", quit tossing in your 2 cents worth!

-----------------

Olddude said: "Let responsible well trained people have their guns but come up with a way of keeping them out of the hands of criminals and unstable people. "

You miss the point that almost anyone can be trained and **considered** responsible until they prove otherwise. Even those who cannot be, or are deranged, or criminals can steal weapons! This boy WAS refused the purchase of a rifle shortly before the shootings. "Oh, never mind, I know where my survivalist mother keeps hers!"

I of course, like the idea of closing the loopholes of gun shows and internet sales. But, Dan... what will you do about millions of assault weapons and handguns with large magazines already out there... many already IN the hands of criminals and the unstable!

I'm sorry, but what I see in the idea "...Let responsible well trained people have their guns but ..." is.. "Don't take MINE!".. and everyone who HAS those weapons will define themselves as 'responsible' and resist any changes.

If ONLY proven responsible folk who actually NEEDED them had guns, I would shrug... but reality is otherwise.... and even IF 75% of everyone agreed with ME, it would be very hard to implement any changes!

So... what are MY ideas? (since I am so loud about things?)

1) I would immediately reinstate the ban on sales and imports of assault weapons
2) I would require ALL privately owned such weapons to be turned in to National Guard armories, with a certain buy-back % of their value.. costly, but worth it) (I am not sure what I would recommend be done with the weapons... but armories can be breached.)
3) I would ban the sale of many types of ammunition... you can guess which types.
4) EVERY known possessor of ANY gun permit would be required to RE-register and be reevaluated... and like drivers, be re-checked every few years. ANY misstatement about number & types of weapons owned would be grounds for revocation of their permits and/or jail time!
5) ANYONE caught using an unregistered firearm, whether in a crime or not, would receive a LARGE fine and some jail time.
6) ANYONE who qualified to have a permit for certain firearms would be subject to random inspections to prove that they had current possession and proper safeguards.
7) I would promote and lobby ALL members of Congress to revisit the 2nd amendment and TRY to pass a reasonable version that addresses the stuff that the Founders could not have imagined.

......now, that's a set of ideas... which I shall send to my congressman & senators. Anyone feel like piggybacking on my ideas to YOUR representatives? I won't complain a bit!

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 06:40 PM

The .223 is a very accurate round. At a long distance.
I'd use one to hunt deer. I had a Ruger Mini 14.
A good gun.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 06:39 PM

They are not always intended to punish the bad guy.

However, thay should also "punish the bad guy" in addition to their educational function, if such there is.

Try again.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 06:15 PM

"Of course there are plenty of gun owners who will contend that since an AK-47 can be used for hunting, they should have a right to own them. Well, if the government has a right to say you can't hunt moose with a .22 because you're more likely to wound the animal than kill it, it should have the right to say you can't have that AK because you're more likely to use it to shoot your neighbor than a deer." ~ Bee-dubya-ell

Quite often, laws, rules and regulations are intended to educate people as to the right thing to do.

They are not always intended to punish the bad guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 06:04 PM

Sorry, PeeDee, but the .223 is a standard military round, has a jacketed bullet, and is considerably more powerful than a standard .22 long rifle cartridge. They are nothing alike.

You're just displaying your ignorance, once again.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:41 PM

The diameter of the slug fired from the Bushmaster was .223 inches, the slug fired from a 22 rifle is .220 (as far as I can tell) so there is very little diference.

Neither should be used in hunting deer, boar, similar large game animals.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:32 PM

There you go again, Lizzie.
The voice of sensibility.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:29 PM

It's a fundamental tenet of US law that a right, once extended, can only be rescinded or limited if its free exercise denies others the free expression of a more fundamental right. Though the practice of chattel slavery was perfectly legal when the Constitution was framed, it was later determined that the right to own slaves was trumped by those slaves' more fundamental right of freedom.

Does the right to bear arms conflict with a more fundamental right? It depends on what arms we're talking about.

People have a right to feed themselves and to feel safe in their homes. For many, whether you or I agree or not, owning a gun for purposes of hunting food and personal protection is part and parcel of securing the fundamental right of life itself.

On the other hand, owning a firearm which is not likely to be used in securing a fundamental right cannot be considered a fundamental right itself. Most semi-automatic rifles in private ownership are used for non-hunting recreational purposes. Last time I checked, recreation is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution or by subsequent legislation. Life is. When the two come into conflict, even though it's a rare occurrence, Bubba's right to shoot an AK-47 at tree stumps gets trumped by his fellow citizens' right to life.

Of course there are plenty of gun owners who will contend that since an AK-47 can be used for hunting, they should have a right to own them. Well, if the government has a right to say you can't hunt moose with a .22 because you're more likely to wound the animal than kill it, it should have the right to say you can't have that AK because you're more likely to use it to shoot your neighbor than a deer.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:29 PM

"Compassion is a far more powerful weapon than violence. Let us all become weapons of mass compassion" — Carlos Santana

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:29 PM

Hmm, dateline on that Columbia Law School article is from almost 2 1/2 years ago. I wonder how people would respond today? No doubt there will be plenty of polling done and it'll be interesting to see where sentiments lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:26 PM

""Should people from other countries mind their own business?
Should Amerika mind its own business?""

Should trolls stay under their friggin' bridge and mind their own business?
I think so.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:10 PM

A friend of mine said tonight that some of the posters on here sounded like a cruel parody of Mel Gibson in Braveheart.

You may kill our children, but you'll never take our guns!

Seems to be what some of you are implying.
It's an awful high price to pay for the right to bear arms.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:08 PM

Should people from other countries mind their own business?
Should Amerika mind its own business?
I think so.
=(:-( P)

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:02 PM

Well, in that case, if President Obama really wants to do something about the situation, what's to stop him from issuing an executive order, not to ban or control guns, but to hold a nationwide referendum asking

1). Should privately owned guns be subject to stricter control, YES or NO?
2). Should gun sale be restricted to gunshop premises where background checks can be made, YES or NO?
3). Should auto and semi auto weapons be banned from private ownership, YES or NO?
4). Should enlarged magazines be banned, YES or NO?
5). Should weapons owned by collectors be rendered permanently inactive, YES or NO?

It's hard to see how Congress or the Senate could ignore five resounding Yesses. After all, they want to be re-elected, while Obama doesn't have to worry about votes.

Anybody know whether this would be possible?......Not will he do it?, just could he do it?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 04:46 PM

From the Columbia Law School website:


New York, July 26, 2010—Most Americans believe the Second Amendment gives people the right to keep a gun at home, but they still favor limits on certain weapons, according to a new survey co-authored by Nathaniel Persily, the Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law and Political Science.

"At a base level, Americans believe in the right to bear arms and own a gun," said Persily, who collaborated on the poll with Harvard University Professor Stephen Ansolabehere.

Persily, a leading constitutional scholar and political scientist, is also the Director of the Center for Law and Politics at Columbia Law School, and co-edited the book Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy, which examined the effect court decisions have on public opinion.

Some 76 percent of the 1,027 persons surveyed online by Knowledge Networks oppose attempts to ban handgun ownership. Almost as many—72 percent—believe the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own a gun, while 25 percent say the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" found in the amendment is confined to forming a militia.

"The Supreme Court's recent decisions confirming an individual's right to own a gun, while recognizing the constitutionality of some limits, has broad support among the American public," Persily said.

{continued at website}

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: gnu
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 03:32 PM

Wellll... back briefly... I got three emails and on PM in response to a PM I sent. Here is my response to two of them, FWIW

mmm... just to be clear. Are you saying, for the reasons given, another amendment cannot be made?

I would have to think carefully about the words to describe my intent, but, off the top of my head - Amendment 2a : Listen up. In the interests of all of youse, and in the name of common sense, anyone who wants to bear arms gotta take an arms saftety course and pass it and have a background check before you can bear arms or ammo. None a youse can bear arms a) if yer too stupid to pass the test b) if ya got a crimial record or warrants or restraining order(s) c) yer a nutbar d) if yer civil union partner says, "A gun? Fuck NO! That asshole would probably use it to rob a corner store to feed his crack habit." e) if you bought a Built Ford Tough F-150 four wheel drive and and then you found out it was a pussy machine and the fuckers at Ford give you a hard time when you try to get shit fixed during the warranty period.

I can't think of any others off the top of my head on accounta a lot of ideas slip off since I lost my hair.

MERRY HO HO!

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 03:10 PM

I have a beautiful MP3 of a Welsh Choir singing All through the night in a medley. You can PM me for a copy. However, it is too large to fit into some mail boxes. SOme it works.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 03:08 PM

"We all know what the problem is; no one knows how to deal with it."
Kendall, In its relatively short history of 230 or so years The USA has done many great things and solved many deep problems. Most of us on the outside looking in have difficulty in comprehending why Americans ignore what seems so obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 03:04 PM

don't hold your breath Captain, he hasn't yet for anyone. But at least Law Enforcement officers past and present do understand what you are saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 02:50 PM

We all know what the problem is; no one knows how to deal with it. Commenting on the obvious has become an exercise in futility.

Jack, I'm still waiting for that apology.
John P my IQ is 140. whats yours?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 02:40 PM

Beautiful sentiments Megan L! Empathy and sympathy for those families is strong despite the bickering and our hearts cry!

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 02:11 PM

Actually, PeeDee, if you want to deal with fact(heaven forfend), the majority of folks in the US in all surveys and polls DO want decent, functional firearms legislation and oppose the NRA/PDQ hysteria - if that's what you mean by "changing the Second Ammendment".

Live with it.

No back to your regularly scheduled BS.

By the way: when do you predict that the jack-booted storm troopers of the opressive U.S. government are going to begin their fiendish oppression?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Megan L
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 01:48 PM

I was going to post this on the thread for the children but i see it was destroyed by bickering so I guess it has to go here pity the children deserve better from adults

No more lullabies

No more lullabies my dear
No laughing smile to still my tear
No joy as you come through the door
For you will come again no more

Hush you hush my darling baby
Hush you hush my own sweet child

All oer the world your mother weeps
Your father lonely vigil keeps
And wonders when we will ever learn
To save the child and love again

Hush you hush my darling baby
Hush you hush my own sweet child

My world stopped but theirs goes on
My lovely child forever gone
For them the shock will pass away
But I will love you every day

mhtbl 1845 17/12/2012

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Amos
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 01:08 PM

1. The Second Amendment does, in fact, relate gun ownership and militia. It is completely disingenuous to pretend that it simply states one clause, the non-infringement clause, and it is equally short-sighted to pretend that the introductory clause concerning the militia is exclusive. The Amendment as written neither states solely that "No law infringing the right to bear arms" shall occur, and neither does it state that "Militia members shall always be allowed to bear arms" to the exclusion of other purposes. It clearly ties the two things together in a loosely-coupled relationship. Loosely enough that it cannot be interpreted exclusively toward militia membership, as written, but it also makes it clear that state militias is the antecedent consideration, the notion behind the dependent clause.

2. The fact that "there is no medical definition of insanity", succinctly stated by Janie, raises the issue of a shamefully large hole in our culture and science--we have a really piss-poor understanding of the human mind, its workings and malfunctions and its genus. We have a mishmash of approaches, some anchored firmly in material biochemistry, some focused on emotion, some dealing with rational management of logic and data, some focused on loss and trauma as remembered incidents, and some tentatively exploring spiritual aspects of thought. We have hundreds of bits and pieces and no working model of the whole, which surely involves all these things. Now there's something we should be ashamed of.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 01:00 PM

"They [the people] don't want the 2nd Amendment changed."

That will be determined by the people soon enough I expect.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 12:51 PM

The fact that there have been 27 amendments to the Constitution does seem to indicate that the original document can be changed if that is what The People want.

They don't want the 2nd Amendment changed.

Live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 12:47 PM

The fact that there have been 27 amendments to the Constitution does seem to indicate that the original document had flaws and oversights that people didn't think of when they put forth the original.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: olddude
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 12:45 PM

We are all pretty much saying the same thing. Let responsible well trained people have their guns but come up with a way of keeping them out of the hands of criminals and unstable people. some easy steps, have a federal registration program and conceal carry law so the states don't have such wide variety of mish mash laws.   Get rid of gun shows that negate all existing laws. I would help quite a bit.   No need to fight about it

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 12:44 PM

No, PeeDee, you resent your simplistic & dogmatic view being opposed by fact and logic.

And Spaw, there'es this proverb about teaching a pig to sing...

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 12:31 PM

I stated a few facts in the last day or two.

I resent being dragged back into this since I already said what needed to be said.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 12:17 PM

Since those are about the same thoughts or at least in the vicinity of mine...........

PEEDEE-----Help me out here with a mystery.......well, it ain't much of a mystery but maybe you can give some answer anyway. In the past couple hundred years we have seen fit to make certain adjustments to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution based onchanging times and attitudes. We seem to never do that to the second and I wonder why.............Of all the "rights" given by the Bill of Rights why have we messed with the rest and not seriously done much at all with what today might be the very least important right of all of them?


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 12:12 PM

Bill D,

Are you capable of arguing the topic without dragging me into your post?

I said what I said and you are mangling it for your own purposes. Shame on you.