Post: #151

(12-15-2012 02:36 PM)A CLOCKWORK TRADER Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 01:14 PM)Katatonic Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 12:25 PM)Samseau Wrote:  A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


How did you miss that part iknowexactly? I mean this is some seriously plain language, not sure how it is difficult to understand.

People need to read what the founding fathers thought of the right to bear arms. The main reason Thomas Jefferson supported the 2nd Amendment is so that citizens can protect themselves from the tyranny of the government.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that it is not the responsibility of the police to protect any individual citizen. Therefore we must be able to defend ourselves.

5 Ways to Curb Gun Violence
Do you find any of these gun control measures unreasonable?

The same government that will restrict gun rights is the regime that has in the past decade asserted the right to detain U.S. citizens without charge, to torture, and to assassinate U.S. citizens abroad. Fuck that. It's a shame that the right never cared about civil liberties while the left stopped caring as soon as the mulatto guy got elected and continued the same policies.

Gun rights are non-negotiable with the leviathan state we have today.

I actually agree it might reduce the number of mass shootings. But it's not worth it. Ben Franklin was right, however often he's been quoted. He's the correct quotation:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The right to protect yourself is an essential liberty, considering that the right to life is the most basic of all. Do you want to entrust to the government the right to declare who is mentally ill and unfit to own a gun?

People should remember that mental illness and institutionalization was the method used by totalitarian and authoritarian states to lock up dissidents under the guise of looking after their citizens.

Post: #152

(12-15-2012 02:50 PM)Therapsid Wrote:  The same government that will restrict gun rights is the regime that has in the past decade asserted the right to detain U.S. citizens without charge, to torture, and to assassinate U.S. citizens abroad. Fuck that. It's a shame that the right never cared about civil liberties while the left stopped caring as soon as the mulatto guy got elected and continued the same policies.

Gun rights are non-negotiable with the leviathan state we have today.

I actually agree it might reduce the number of mass shootings. But it's not worth it. Ben Franklin was right, however often he's been quoted. He's the correct quotation:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The right to protect yourself is an essential liberty, considering that the right to life is the most basic of all. Do you want to entrust to the government the right to declare who is mentally ill and unfit to own a gun?

People should remember that mental illness and institutionalization was the method used by totalitarian and authoritarian states to lock up dissidents under the guise of looking after their citizens.

Did you even read those suggestions? You'd still be able to own a gun. Just not one with large magazines or automatic weapons. Weapons of that nature are not for self-defense. They're meant to kill and injure as many as possible.

And as far as mental health, I think that's a perfectly acceptable requirement in order to own a deadly weapon.

Post: #153

(12-15-2012 03:03 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 02:50 PM)Therapsid Wrote:  The same government that will restrict gun rights is the regime that has in the past decade asserted the right to detain U.S. citizens without charge, to torture, and to assassinate U.S. citizens abroad. Fuck that. It's a shame that the right never cared about civil liberties while the left stopped caring as soon as the mulatto guy got elected and continued the same policies.

Gun rights are non-negotiable with the leviathan state we have today.

I actually agree it might reduce the number of mass shootings. But it's not worth it. Ben Franklin was right, however often he's been quoted. He's the correct quotation:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The right to protect yourself is an essential liberty, considering that the right to life is the most basic of all. Do you want to entrust to the government the right to declare who is mentally ill and unfit to own a gun?

People should remember that mental illness and institutionalization was the method used by totalitarian and authoritarian states to lock up dissidents under the guise of looking after their citizens.

Did you even read those suggestions? You'd still be able to own a gun. Just not one with large magazines or automatic weapons. Weapons of that nature are not for self-defense. They're meant to kill and injure as many as possible.

And as far as mental health, I think that's a perfectly acceptable requirement in order to own a deadly weapon.

I actually thought about this, but here's the problem - a person's medical records are confidential. In running checks for a person's criminal record to judge their fitness to own a weapon, how do we check for mental fitness? Good luck trying to pass legislation that allows access to these kinds of records.

Post: #154

(12-15-2012 02:50 PM)Therapsid Wrote:  The same government that will restrict gun rights is the regime that has in the past decade asserted the right to detain U.S. citizens without charge, to torture, and to assassinate U.S. citizens abroad. Fuck that. It's a shame that the right never cared about civil liberties while the left stopped caring as soon as the mulatto guy got elected and continued the same policies.

Gun rights are non-negotiable with the leviathan state we have today.

I actually agree it might reduce the number of mass shootings. But it's not worth it. Ben Franklin was right, however often he's been quoted. He's the correct quotation:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

You're far too emotional on this topic. I don't even think you read the whole article. You're rambling.....

You've addressed one point only; about mental health:

(12-15-2012 02:50 PM)Therapsid Wrote:  The right to protect yourself is an essential liberty, considering that the right to life is the most basic of all. Do you want to entrust to the government the right to declare who is mentally ill and unfit to own a gun?

People should remember that mental illness and institutionalization was the method used by totalitarian and authoritarian states to lock up dissidents under the guise of looking after their citizens.

I don't even know where to begin with this one. First of all, the government won't be entrusted to declare anyone mentally ill. A doctor would. See the difference? A series of doctors in private practice can be contracted by your state/federal government to give you a mental health examination and mail the results to the proper state/federal authorities. What's the problem here?

Reasonable people everywhere can agree that a gun owner should be mentally capable. So again, what's the problem here?

What are your views toward the other 4 gun control measures in the article? Here is the link again: 5 Ways to Curb Gun Violence

Again, if anyone wants to dispute these reasonable gun control measures please do so.

Post: #155

(12-15-2012 03:14 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  I actually thought about this, but here's the problem - a person's medical records are confidential. In running checks for a person's criminal record to judge their fitness to own a weapon, how do we check for mental fitness? Good luck trying to pass legislation that allows access to these kinds of records.

Couldn't an individual consent to sharing their records?

Post: #156

(12-15-2012 03:33 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 03:14 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  I actually thought about this, but here's the problem - a person's medical records are confidential. In running checks for a person's criminal record to judge their fitness to own a weapon, how do we check for mental fitness? Good luck trying to pass legislation that allows access to these kinds of records.

Couldn't an individual consent to sharing their records?

I suppose this is possible, but that's assuming a person has had any past treatment. If they've never had a psych assessment, are you recommending one be done? Then you'd have to wait for the results before you could get your handgun. I know part of the NRA's issue is they are against the 2 week waiting period. The way the healthcare system works, it could be weeks before you got an appointment, then a few more weeks before the results came through.

Post: #157

(12-15-2012 03:39 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 03:33 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 03:14 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  I actually thought about this, but here's the problem - a person's medical records are confidential. In running checks for a person's criminal record to judge their fitness to own a weapon, how do we check for mental fitness? Good luck trying to pass legislation that allows access to these kinds of records.

Couldn't an individual consent to sharing their records?

I suppose this is possible, but that's assuming a person has had any past treatment. If they've never had a psych assessment, are you recommending one be done? Then you'd have to wait for the results before you could get your handgun. I know part of the NRA's issue is they are against the 2 week waiting period. The way the healthcare system works, it could be weeks before you got an appointment, then a few more weeks before the results came through.

Of course its possible.

A reasonable gun control initiative: To own a gun you must undergo a mental health examination and consent to share the results of that examination to the proper authorities.

You don't want to consent sharing the results of that mental health examination? Fine. You just won't be issued a gun license. Anyone find issue with this?

Post: #158

Gentlemen:

The Oklahoma city bombing was a lot worse, and that was used with home depot fertilizer.

I believe in gun control, but you definatly cant get rid of guns. It gives too much power to the government.

On my facebook today somebody kept showing me stats from japan and how they don't have guns. But keep in mind, "we disarmed Japan" with 2 freakin nuclear bombs. Many unarmed countries in Europe were invaded and taken over TWICE in the 1900's. We have a mental health problem....

Captain P

Post: #159

(12-15-2012 03:46 PM)A CLOCKWORK TRADER Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 03:39 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 03:33 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 03:14 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  I actually thought about this, but here's the problem - a person's medical records are confidential. In running checks for a person's criminal record to judge their fitness to own a weapon, how do we check for mental fitness? Good luck trying to pass legislation that allows access to these kinds of records.

Couldn't an individual consent to sharing their records?

I suppose this is possible, but that's assuming a person has had any past treatment. If they've never had a psych assessment, are you recommending one be done? Then you'd have to wait for the results before you could get your handgun. I know part of the NRA's issue is they are against the 2 week waiting period. The way the healthcare system works, it could be weeks before you got an appointment, then a few more weeks before the results came through.

Of course its possible.

A reasonable gun control initiative: To own a gun you must undergo a mental health examination and consent to share the results of that examination to the proper authorities.

You don't want to consent sharing the results of that mental health examination? Fine. You just won't be issued a gun license. Anyone find issue with this?

I'm good with this, but the NRA wouldn't be. And since they largely speak for gun owners, the public would need to do battle with their own lobby. And I also see the "government intrusion" argument growing out of this.

Post: #160

I would also add some restrictions on owning a gun with a mentally unstable person in the same household.

That might be hard to enforce, but I think this crazy kid used his mothers legally owned guns...

Post: #161

(12-14-2012 03:01 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  Now where is Assman? It's got to be just a matter of minutes before he pops us and tells us how all the little kids should have been packing guns.

Awww, did ya miss me? Sorry I’m late.

(12-14-2012 04:38 PM)soup Wrote:  "So where are these mythical All American True Blue NRA Concealed Carrying Lone Ranger Americans to stop all of these mass shooters (who get their semiautomatic weapons thanks to loose gun control laws) from killing people? You know, the gun owners that the GOP and gun rights people keep talking about, how they would save the day with their guns? Where are they at?"

Schools are “gun-free” zones, so it would have been illegal for anyone to be there with a gun. Not that anyone intent on murder gives a shit about gun laws.

Gun free zone = target rich environment!

Gun-free zones are about as sensible as zombie-free zones:


The fact of the matter is that nearly all of these mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. Psychopaths are not stupid and they do not want to be shot. In almost all of these instances, as soon as someone who can shoot back shows up, the shooter either offs himself or surrenders. They are all cowards, and NOT looking to engage armed resistance.

(12-15-2012 12:21 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  For the paranoids among us (Gubmint gonna getchoo) , if you were to have some fantasized revolution against the Gubmint, a Blackhawk with a misslie will take out your whole house and your pals holed up in it before you can even draw a bead. The gubmint has such superior firepower you could never fight them. Not even close. All you can do is Lee Harvey Oswald shit. Real productive.

False. Afghanistan (USSR), Vietnam, Afghanistan (US), Iraq. Overwhelming military might has been defeated time and time again by an armed populace.

For those who think a disarmed population is not in grave danger, watch this:



All the psychopath mass shootings combined are but a drop in the ocean of blood that has been spilled by governments that had a monopoly on violence.

(12-15-2012 12:33 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  These type of killings will continue to happen until people give up there guns.

I’ll give up my guns when all criminals and future criminals give up theirs. Deal?


Let’s take a look at the UK, that Sarah Brady paradise of gun control, where gun crime has gone up 89% in a decade. By contrast, lawful gun ownership in the US has been increasing steadily and gun crime has been decreasing. This is even more pronounced if you exclude the parts of the country with the strictest gun control (Chicago, DC, etc.). I posted this along with sources in an earlier thread - I think it was the Zimmerman thread.

Or Venezuela, where Chavez instituted gun control and the murder rate skyrocketed (too lazy to search for source, but you can find it, if you care).

Would a gun ban in the US prevent people intent on killing? Did Prohibition stop people intent on obtaining alcohol? How about banning narcotics - how’s that War on Drugs working out?

Even if someone couldn’t get, or didn’t bother with, a gun, will that prevent killing? We’ve seen hundreds, and thousands murdered using fertilizer and boxcutters.

Let’s get real and abandon this silly notion that we can legislate away evil. All you end up doing is disarming the law abiding and make it easier for those who would harm others.

Post: #162

I suppose this is a better venue than Facebook, I still feel that now is not the time to debate gun control in the wake of this tragedy.

Spread some love instead.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/moments-t...ity-this-y

Post: #163

I think it's funny that people think that owning guns limits the power of the government, like this is 1792. Dudes we live in the fucking 21st Century, there's no way bands of redneck shotgun toting militias are going to be able to limit the power of the federal government, although there probably are some posters who are likely to believe that. I can understand owning a handgun, but there is no need for an average citizen to be owning high calibur assault rifles.

As far as this particular situation goes with the school, there is no easy answer for that. There are just some seriously sick, deranged, and psychotic people out there, who hate themselves and their lives, they are so filled with hate, that they want everyone else to suffer as well.

I think there needs to be some gun control, as far as greater background checks, restricting some peoples gun rights, banning assault rifles, etc., also maybe a required gun ownership class and certification, does that seem unreasonable to you people?

The gun lovers are right to the extent that guns won't ever really be leaving the U.S., there are too many of them and they are too engrained in the culture. That said, that doesn't mean we can't change the culture and the society, and start limiting and restricting the amount of guns that are being sold, not increasing them.

Oh and for those who say we can't get them off the streets, in major U.S. cities there have been very successful gun buy back programs, where people can get paid cash to come in anonymously and sell their guns to get them off the streets. I don't see why this wouldn't continue to be a success if there were more funding to continue these types of programs.

And the argument that everyone should be packing a gun at all times to make society safer, is just completely retarded. All it takes is one fucking nut to go off the deep end and a whole bunch of people are killed, whether the guy gets shot by a bystandard who is also packing or not, the crazy nut can easily shoot 4 or 5 people before he gets taken out. Now just assume you are in a bar full of drunken agro douchebags who all have guns, the odds that the murder rate will triple are high in my opinion.

Post: #164

A lot of guys seem to have this hero mentality and how if someone walks into their territory they'll shootem down. If someone breaks in your house 99% will end up hiding. the other 1% will end up in a shoot out which they have a high chance of dieing in or being seriously injured. Far higher than had they just said fuck it, hidden and let the robber take their shit.

In public it doesn't matter if everyone is packing, think about how fast the shooter could get off 20 rounds before someone shoots him. It's not as though everyone around the shooter is going to be walking with a gun in their hand.

Post: #165

(12-15-2012 07:09 PM)lavidaloca Wrote:  A lot of guys seem to have this hero mentality and how if someone walks into their territory they'll shootem down. If someone breaks in your house 99% will end up hiding. the other 1% will end up in a shoot out which they have a high chance of dieing in or being seriously injured. Far higher than had they just said fuck it, hidden and let the robber take their shit.

In public it doesn't matter if everyone is packing, think about how fast the shooter could get off 20 rounds before someone shoots him. It's not as though everyone around the shooter is going to be walking with a gun in their hand.

That's why you need to attack people in your yard before they get near the house.

Post: #166

(12-15-2012 06:49 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  Oh and for those who say we can't get them off the streets, in major U.S. cities there have been very successful gun buy back programs, where people can get paid cash to come in anonymously and sell their guns to get them off the streets. I don't see why this wouldn't continue to be a success if there were more funding to continue these types of programs.

Are you sure these buy back programs have been successful?

My understanding is that most of the guns turned in are legal firearms that are often broken. I can't imagine that bad guys are turning in murder weapons.

Post: #167

Governments have killed over 100 million unarmed people in the last century.... how's that compared with a few shootings by crazies (which always happen in gun free zones...)

Post: #168

This isn't the first time this has happened and this certainly isn't the last. As long as organized society exists tragedies like this will always happen. You can lock up all the guns, but we tried that with drugs and that obviously isn't working out very well. If people want things bad enough they'll get them it's as simple as that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster - 1929 infinitely worse than this. Naysayers can say that American is some cultural wasteland (though I won't dispute that) but it's mostly that people in general are just pieces of shit when they have the means to be so.

The media will blow this up, the politicians will rally the citizens, maybe some laws will change, who knows. But people will continue to be people whether American, Russian, Polish, or god forbid Haitian.

Post: #169

Morgan Freeman sums it up best IMO:

TURN OFF THE NEWS.......

Morgan Freeman's brilliant take on what happened yesterday :

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."

Post: #170

FUcked up society and culture, when the mainstream wants to keep guns legal and easy to access, while keeping drugs (weed) illegal and difficult to obtain.

Post: #171

Freeman's insight in that quote Casanova almost makes me think that he's been in the position himself at one time or another.

Post: #172

22 children were wounded in a knife attack in China yesterday.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia...hpt=hp_bn2

Post: #173

They were knived and will probably all live. Thats the difference when you have guns involved.

Post: #174

(12-15-2012 07:31 PM)MSW2007 Wrote:  Are you sure these buy back programs have been successful?

My understanding is that most of the guns turned in are legal firearms that are often broken. I can't imagine that bad guys are turning in murder weapons.

That is correct. The government ends up paying, or rather, you the taxpayer end up paying, for what is essentially scrap metal. They also get old .22 rifles and such that a widow turns in after her husband's death (she turns in the very thing that would be her only equalizer against a intruder in her home). Recently a woman turned in a WWII era German Sturmgewehr worth tens of thousands of dollars (she had no idea, it was her deceased father's bringback from WW2; fortunately the cops realized what it was and told her and didn't send it to the smelter or keep it for themselves).

But for the most part, they are not getting functioning handguns. Think about it from the illegal gun owner's perspective. You're a thug with a Glock worth at least $500 - are you going to turn it in for a $100 Walmart gift card? Now if you're a thug and your handgun is broken beyond repair, maybe you'll go take $100 from Uncle Sam for the hunk of junk, but even then you might not - why risk getting spotted at the buyback location (while the buyback itself is no questions asked, there is no protection outside the location, and you better believe the criminals know the po-po is watching who comes in).

The occasional functioning handgun that buybacks net are from relatives who take a criminal's gun and turn it in. If you make buybacks more common, the criminals will just get wise to this and hide their guns better, or threaten family members.

The main purpose of the buyback is so politicians can stand there and act like they are doing something for the community, when what they mostly did was disarm a bunch of old ladies.

Post: #175

(12-15-2012 08:59 PM)lavidaloca Wrote:  They were knived and will probably all live. Thats the difference when you have guns involved.

The mentality of someone who would rather leave themselves to the mercy of a criminal (who has already shown a willingness to break the law!) than allow law abiding people to be armed as a defense and a deterrent.

Colin Goddard, who cowered under a desk (he was unarmed, so no effective means of fighting back) while Victor Cho was gunning down students at Virginia Tech ('gun-free' zone of course), waiting for his turn to be shot (which came), now works for the Brady Campaign, lobbying so that all Americans will be in the same position he was if evil comes their way.

F that noise. I carry a gun. If evil comes my way, I am shooting back.