View Full Version : Here We go-Carolyn McCarthy on Gun Control
BPTactical
01-09-2011, 21:31
Well, time waits for none....
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), pounced on the shooting massacre in Tucson | AP Photo Close
By SHIRA TOEPLITZ (http://www.politico.com/reporters/ShiraToeplitz.html) | 1/9/11 5:57 PM EST
One of the fiercest gun-control (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/guncontrol) advocates in Congress, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/carolynmccarthy) (D-N.Y.), pounced on the shooting massacre in Tucson Sunday, promising to introduce legislation as soon as Monday.
McCarthy ran for Congress (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/congress) after her husband was gunned down and her son seriously injured in a shooting in 1993 on a Long Island commuter train.
McCarthy readies gun control bill (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html)
“My staff is working on looking at the different legislation fixes that we might be able to do and we might be able to introduce as early as tomorrow,” McCarthy told POLITICO in a Sunday afternoon phone interview.
Gun control activists cried it was time to reform weapons laws in the United States, almost immediately after a gunman killed six and injured 14 more, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/gabriellegiffords), in Arizona on Saturday.
Many said that people with a history of mental instability, like the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, should not be able to buy a gun — and no one should be able to buy stockpiles of ammunition used by the 22-year-old assailant.
McCarthy said she plans to confer with House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to see “if we can work something through” in the coming week.
McCarthy’s bill will look to protect ordinary people, she said, but did not offer further details.
“Again, we need to look at how this is going to work, to protect people, certainly citizens, and we have to look at what I can pass,” she said. “I don’t want to give the NRA – excuse the pun – the ammunition to come at me either.”
Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress.
Another vocal supporter for gun control, Illinois Rep. Mike Quigley, told POLITICO that he hopes “something good” can come from the Arizona tragedy – perhaps discussion on a new assault weapon ban, sales at gun shows and tracing measures.
Loughner legally purchased his weapon – a Glock 19 with an extended magazine – from an Arizona store. The same kind of extended magazine was illegal under the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.
“The ability to buy a weapon that fires hundreds of bullets in less than a minute,” said Quigley. “He had an additional magazine capability. That’s not what a hunter needs. That’s not what someone needs to defend their home. That’s what you use to hunt people.”
After the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, in which a student with a history of psychological problems killed 33 and injured 25 others, lawmakers immediately started looking at gun control reforms both in the state and atthe federal level.
Then-Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine issued an executive order making it harder for people who have been committed to mental health treatment centers to buy a gun.
In 2008 President George W. Bush signed a law expanding the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which registered gun dealers use, to include more comprehensive reporting of mental health records. Under the current law, it is illegal for anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution” to purchase a firearm, according to the FBI’s website.
However, Loughner did not fall into either of those categories, according to Josh Horwitz, the executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
“I’ve seen no evidence that he falls into those categories. It’s the same thing as this guy at Virginia Tech,” said Horwitz. “We can do a much better job checking people’s mental health background.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html
DeusExMachina
01-09-2011, 21:36
That Brady, trying to make dissent illegal. I hope for our country this doesn't come to fruition.
OgenRwot
01-09-2011, 21:54
Yeah this thing is DOA. It probably wont even get out of committee but if it does it will not pass the House. We've got the majority and there are plenty of Dems that wouldn't vote for this either. Total political suicide, hell it probably wouldn't pass the Senate either.
hurley842002
01-09-2011, 22:04
Yeah this thing is DOA. It probably wont even get out of committee but if it does it will not pass the House. We've got the majority and there are plenty of Dems that wouldn't vote for this either. Total political suicide, hell it probably wouldn't pass the Senate either.
You always seem to bring some "Political reassurance" to the table, good hearing from you!
[Beer]
Great-Kazoo
01-09-2011, 22:11
Yeah this thing is DOA. It probably wont even get out of committee but if it does it will not pass the House. We've got the majority and there are plenty of Dems that wouldn't vote for this either. Total political suicide, hell it probably wouldn't pass the Senate either.
same response gun owners were saying in 94.
doesn't have a chance.
this guy passed their already bullshit background checks, bought everything legally.
he should have been check out mentally by his parents, or by some type of enforcement. especially after being questioned by a college.
there are waaay too many factors, waaay too much background evidence here that should have been caught long before this happened.
what are they going to push for? a psych eval before each gun or ammo purchase, then a early eval?
I don't see the house or the senate taking this on, or passing anything.
2008f450
01-09-2011, 22:20
I will never understand their thinking. They instantly jump to ban everything. Unless its something they get "contributions" from. If I drive a car through a school full of kids its my fault not the car. But the Libtard dumbies go right to the guns not the retard monkeys that do the damage.[Rant1]
DeusExMachina
01-09-2011, 22:21
doesn't have a chance.
this guy passed their already bullshit background checks, bought everything legally.
he should have been check out mentally by his parents, or by some type of enforcement. especially after being questioned by a college.
there are waaay too many factors, waaay too much background evidence here that should have been caught long before this happened.
what are they going to push for? a psych eval before each gun or ammo purchase, then a early eval?
I don't see the house or the senate taking this on, or passing anything.
Right. Their weak "safe guards" have been defeated. So they will be looking for stricter methods. Who knows the lunacy.
If this was at 9/11 levels of tragedy, who knows what they'd get away with.
theGinsue
01-09-2011, 22:30
If they are prepared to introduce legislation as early as tomorrow, this should tell all of us that they'd had it prepared to introduce for some time - just waiting for the right opportunity of fear to get it in.
Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress.
Censorship? Violation of the 1st Amendment?
“The ability to buy a weapon that fires hundreds of bullets in less than a minute,” said Quigley. “He had an additional magazine capability. That’s not what a hunter needs. That’s not what someone needs to defend their home."
Some folks just don't get it. The Second Amendment (2A) wasn't created simply to allow for hunting. And while the ability to defend one's home is part of the consideration for the creation 2A, even that isn't the main reason for it's creation. The primary consideration in the creation of 2A is for the protecdtion of the citizens against a tyranical government. Pure and simple.
Many said that people with a history of mental instability, like the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, should not be able to buy a gun — and no one should be able to buy stockpiles of ammunition used by the 22-year-old assailant.
Sure, tremendously limit the amount of ammunition people can legally own/possess and the question of individuals owning and possessing firearms soon becomes moot. Kalifornia realized this and they'd taken measures to control the ammunition of their citizens - thus controlling their citizens.
Under the current law, it is illegal for anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution” to purchase a firearm, according to the FBI’s website.
However, Loughner did not fall into either of those categories, according to Josh Horwitz, the executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
“I’ve seen no evidence that he falls into those categories. It’s the same thing as this guy at Virginia Tech,” said Horwitz. “We can do a much better job checking people’s mental health background.”
This is because there was a widespread failure in Loughner's case. Not any actual firearms related system mind you, but this guy was clearly mentally unstable. Why didn't his parents step in to help him? Why didn't his friends (such as they were) step in to help him. Why didn't his teachers step in to help him? He'd been in the court system on at least a couple of occasions - why didn't the courts step in to help him?
So what's the answer? The anti-gun advocates don't want anyone to have a firearm. Will they then introduce a requirement that everyone looking to purchase a firearm has to go through a mental "health" assessment prior to getting approved for the purchase. Sounds impossible and it's certainly impractical, but in the tristed logic of the anti-gun establishment, I can see this getting recommended.
ETA:
doesn't have a chance.
this guy passed their already bullshit background checks, bought everything legally.
he should have been check out mentally by his parents, or by some type of enforcement. especially after being questioned by a college.
there are waaay too many factors, waaay too much background evidence here that should have been caught long before this happened.
what are they going to push for? a psych eval before each gun or ammo purchase, then a early eval?
I don't see the house or the senate taking this on, or passing anything.
This is what I get for taking so long to formulate my thoughts and submit my posts - sniper and I are thinking along the same lines but he got the message made and submitted before I could! (His post wasn't made yet when I began typing up my post).
sniper - glad to see that you and I think alike.
Scanker19
01-09-2011, 22:30
Right. Their weak "safe guards" have been defeated. So they will be looking for stricter methods. Who knows the lunacy.
If this was at 9/11 levels of tragedy, who knows what they'd get away with.
Exactly. All they need is fear. As Lionel Hutz once said "We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are KINDS of evidence."
she also tried in 2007.
here is how smart she is:
On the April 18, 2007 showing of MSNBC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC)'s program, Tucker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_%28television_program%29), Tucker Carlson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_Carlson) interviewed McCarthy concerning the Virginia Tech massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre) and her proposed reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban. He asked her to explain the need to regulate barrel shrouds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_shrouds), one of the many provisions of the Act.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#cite_note-HR1022-9) She responded that more importantly the legislation would ban large capacity "clips (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_%28firearms%29)" used in the Virginia Tech massacre and that the class of guns chosen were those used by gangs and police killers. However, the Virginia Tech shooter did not have high capacity magazines; they were the AWB compliant 10 round variety. After admitting that she did not know what a barrel shroud was, McCarthy incorrectly stated, "I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up".
the only difference is this in an attack on one of their own. even so, the proposal to extend the AWB failed miserably. I think 8-90.
i really hope they see that a backlash against citizens rights for 1 person screwing up will cost them severely later on.
NoCharge4Awesome
01-09-2011, 22:42
lets imagine for a second that some type of ban goes into law. would you guys hand over your guns or what?
2008f450
01-09-2011, 22:46
lets imagine for a second that some type of ban goes into law. would you guys hand over your guns or what?
[Ignore]
Hell no I wouldnt
DeusExMachina
01-09-2011, 22:49
As per usual with these types of laws, it would only serve to make lawful citizens unlawful.
clublights
01-09-2011, 22:54
lets imagine for a second that some type of ban goes into law. would you guys hand over your guns or what?
I would ... I'm an upstanding citizen !!!! you must obey all laws....
however all my weapons were lost in that tragic boating accident.....
lets imagine for a second that some type of ban goes into law. would you guys hand over your guns or what?
sure, i have a few i would hand over
I think we should outlaw books because Huck Finn has "******
in it, and a nation wide dress code because I was offended by the muffin top I saw pouring out of some lady's pants at wal mart.
oh, and for good measure, anyone that speaks out against a member of congress should be shot in their safeway parking lot.
lets imagine for a second that some type of ban goes into law. would you guys hand over your guns or what?
I would never encourage anyone to operate in violation of the law. Thank goodness everything was lost in that boating accident...
I would ... I'm an upstanding citizen !!!! you must obey all laws....
however all my weapons were lost in that tragic boating accident.....
You too? [LOL]
clublights
01-09-2011, 23:26
You too? [LOL]
I know right ??
What were we thinking with our whole collections out on boats in rough waters right over the deepest spot on the lake ... in bad weather.. so there was no one around to see it ...
Thank god for the doggie paddle or I mighta went down with em !!!
pickenup
01-10-2011, 00:18
Boats sure are a dangerous place for firearms.
I should have known better, but I'm in the same boat.
So to speak.
Byte Stryke
01-10-2011, 00:38
lets imagine for a second that some type of ban goes into law. would you guys hand over your guns or what?
I would ... I'm an upstanding citizen !!!! you must obey all laws....
however all my weapons were lost in that tragic boating accident.....
what Guns?
See, we went fishing out at 11mile...
I know that Logic never has any place in Gun debates, But lets try this on:
Lets enforce the laws we have on the books instead of simply passing more laws that the criminals wont obey anyways.
I know, Crazy...
lets imagine for a second that some type of ban goes into law. would you guys hand over your guns or what?
You know I believe in obeying the law no matter how stupid it is. Yes, unquestionably I would hand over my guns. Unfortunately, boats seem to have a lot of problems these days, and lots of us as I can see like to make sure we take our fire arms with us any time we are on boats for some reason. No one is perfect. I can't quite remember where about my paddle boat sank on Lake Powell... Such a shame... Should have tied them to a life jacket or something. [ROFL1]
KevDen2005
01-10-2011, 00:45
Well, time waits for none....
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), pounced on the shooting massacre in Tucson | AP Photo Close
By SHIRA TOEPLITZ (http://www.politico.com/reporters/ShiraToeplitz.html) | 1/9/11 5:57 PM EST
One of the fiercest gun-control (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/guncontrol) advocates in Congress, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/carolynmccarthy) (D-N.Y.), pounced on the shooting massacre in Tucson Sunday, promising to introduce legislation as soon as Monday.
McCarthy ran for Congress (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/congress) after her husband was gunned down and her son seriously injured in a shooting in 1993 on a Long Island commuter train.
McCarthy readies gun control bill (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html)
“My staff is working on looking at the different legislation fixes that we might be able to do and we might be able to introduce as early as tomorrow,” McCarthy told POLITICO in a Sunday afternoon phone interview.
Gun control activists cried it was time to reform weapons laws in the United States, almost immediately after a gunman killed six and injured 14 more, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/gabriellegiffords), in Arizona on Saturday.
Many said that people with a history of mental instability, like the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, should not be able to buy a gun — and no one should be able to buy stockpiles of ammunition used by the 22-year-old assailant.
McCarthy said she plans to confer with House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to see “if we can work something through” in the coming week.
McCarthy’s bill will look to protect ordinary people, she said, but did not offer further details.
“Again, we need to look at how this is going to work, to protect people, certainly citizens, and we have to look at what I can pass,” she said. “I don’t want to give the NRA – excuse the pun – the ammunition to come at me either.”
Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress.
Another vocal supporter for gun control, Illinois Rep. Mike Quigley, told POLITICO that he hopes “something good” can come from the Arizona tragedy – perhaps discussion on a new assault weapon ban, sales at gun shows and tracing measures.
Loughner legally purchased his weapon – a Glock 19 with an extended magazine – from an Arizona store. The same kind of extended magazine was illegal under the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.
“The ability to buy a weapon that fires hundreds of bullets in less than a minute,” said Quigley. “He had an additional magazine capability. That’s not what a hunter needs. That’s not what someone needs to defend their home. That’s what you use to hunt people.”
After the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, in which a student with a history of psychological problems killed 33 and injured 25 others, lawmakers immediately started looking at gun control reforms both in the state and atthe federal level.
Then-Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine issued an executive order making it harder for people who have been committed to mental health treatment centers to buy a gun.
In 2008 President George W. Bush signed a law expanding the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which registered gun dealers use, to include more comprehensive reporting of mental health records. Under the current law, it is illegal for anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution” to purchase a firearm, according to the FBI’s website.
However, Loughner did not fall into either of those categories, according to Josh Horwitz, the executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
“I’ve seen no evidence that he falls into those categories. It’s the same thing as this guy at Virginia Tech,” said Horwitz. “We can do a much better job checking people’s mental health background.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html
You all knew this was coming, but it pisses me off too. Everytime we get a little bit, some jackass goes and shoots a place up....[Rant1]
I know that Logic never has any place in Gun debates, But lets try this on:
Lets enforce the laws we have on the books instead of simply passing more laws that the criminals wont obey anyways.
I know, Crazy...
Byte, that makes sense. Which is why no one will go for it. If you are going to come up with anything the law makers will think about, you are going to have to think a little more in right field. Then throw in the word "magic", I think they might look into it a little more then.
NPR has been playing a sound clip of this dumb lady laying the blame for this shooting directly onto the Tea Party.
If you guys keep talking about boating accidents, pretty soon, they'll ban boats! Or at least boat accidents.
NoCharge4Awesome
01-10-2011, 01:41
boats and all that
TEAMRICO
01-10-2011, 02:18
Bad news guys. I was out boating last night and had my guns with me. Yes all of them, and as I was checking all the night sights to confirm they still worked I got hit by a Rouge Wave.
Gone I tell you, the whole lot!!
My wife said I should have just went into the basement and turn the lights out. Did I listen? No. What am I going to do with all these "High Cap Clips"? And all this "High Capacity Ammuntion"?
Damn...
DeusExMachina
01-10-2011, 08:14
Don't forget the shoulder thing that goes up.
Bad news guys. I was out boating last night and had my guns with me. Yes all of them, and as I was checking all the night sights to confirm they still worked I got hit by a Rouge Wave.
Gone I tell you, the whole lot!!
My wife said I should have just went into the basement and turn the lights out. Did I listen? No. What am I going to do with all these "High Cap Clips"? And all this "High Capacity Ammuntion"?
Damn...
You didn't have your clips or ammo with you? lucky dog, I lost everything...
StagLefty
01-10-2011, 09:24
Yeah this thing is DOA. It probably wont even get out of committee but if it does it will not pass the House. We've got the majority and there are plenty of Dems that wouldn't vote for this either. Total political suicide, hell it probably wouldn't pass the Senate either.
Good to have one of us in Washington [ROFL1]-OgenRwot for Pres. [Coffee]
BPTactical
01-10-2011, 09:30
You know I understand the "logical" thinking as far as 2A issues ie "guns don't kill,people kill" "if guns kill then pencils cause mis-spelled words" etc. But I think we are overlooking the obvious.
We tend to think in a logical and sensible way. Most normal people do.
But when it comes to lawmakers they do not. They live sheltered and insulated lives far disconnected from reality. History has proven this repeatedly, especially of late.
Logic and common sense do not play into their worlds.
Right now we have 500+ elected officials that are considering their safety. Some are probably very concerned if not scared.
Scared politicos and lawmakers are far more dangerous than a deranged individual with a Glock 19.
Get ready for the kneejerk assault on 2A rights and "freedom of speech".
The winds of "change" may very well become a tempest soon.....
Byte Stryke
01-10-2011, 09:37
The winds of "change" may very well become a tempest soon.....
May the tempest blow away all that is derelict and ill contrived. May it push asunder the ill designed and poorly maintained that we may start anew.
StagLefty
01-10-2011, 09:50
You know I understand the "logical" thinking as far as 2A issues ie "guns don't kill,people kill" "if guns kill then pencils cause mis-spelled words" etc. But I think we are overlooking the obvious.
We tend to think in a logical and sensible way. Most normal people do.
But when it comes to lawmakers they do not. They live sheltered and insulated lives far disconnected from reality. History has proven this repeatedly, especially of late.
Logic and common sense do not play into their worlds.
Right now we have 500+ elected officials that are considering their safety. Some are probably very concerned if not scared.
Scared politicos and lawmakers are far more dangerous than a deranged individual with a Glock 19.
Get ready for the kneejerk assault on 2A rights and "freedom of speech".
The winds of "change" may very well become a tempest soon.....
I couldn't agree more [Beer]
DeusExMachina
01-10-2011, 09:57
The left offers a very attractive incentive to even pro 2A congresspeople. Safety and security in their position of power...from guns to words the liberals want to push legislation to keep these bad things away from our masters in government. I can see how they are persuaded.
Don't forget the shoulder thing that goes up.
And the thing in the stock that tells time.
hollohas
01-10-2011, 12:40
Saw some chick on the news this morning that helped stop this. She was laying on the ground when the shooter was reloading right next to her. She saw him take a clip out of his pocket and heard someone yell "grab his magazine" so she did. Snatched it right out of his hand. Then some other men came a tackled the shooter. If that is true, she is a hero for sure. Great job lady!
DeusExMachina
01-10-2011, 12:43
Saw some chick on the news this morning that helped stop this. She was laying on the ground when the shooter was reloading right next to her. She saw him take a clip out of his pocket and heard someone yell "grab his magazine" so she did. Snatched it right out of his hand. Then some other men came a tackled the shooter. If that is true, she is a hero for sure. Great job lady!
Yeah, she did it after being shot too! Good for her. So much for security.
funkfool
01-10-2011, 12:50
what are they going to push for? a psych eval before each gun or ammo purchase, then a early eval?
Please take this test (http://deltabravo.net/custody/rorschach.php) before we can sell you anything...
Wait... take the test BEFORE you even enter the store...
funkfool
01-10-2011, 13:01
Please take this test (http://deltabravo.net/custody/rorschach.php) before we can sell you anything...
Wait... take the test BEFORE you even enter the store...
Wait - take the tests before you leave the house!!
OH WAIT... we'll just house you in a remote location and adminster the test on a rigorous schedule between your meal or sleep periods.
Gotta keep the children safe...
OH WAIT....
We'll keep them in a 'secure' location - for safety.... ya know...
Geology Rocks
01-10-2011, 13:35
Run someone over with a car? Drivers fault
Stab someone with a kitchen knife? Persons fault
Parachute doesnt open? Skydivers fault
Die on a motorcycle? Riders fault
Kill someone with a gun? Guns fault
Makes sense to me. :rolleyes:
Joe
BPTactical
01-10-2011, 16:04
Run someone over with a car? Drivers fault
Stab someone with a kitchen knife? Persons fault
Parachute doesnt open? Skydivers fault
Die on a motorcycle? Riders fault
Kill someone with a gun? Guns fault
Makes sense to me. :rolleyes:
Joe
Winner!
For those who have any interest in Congresswoman McCarthy's entry into politics, here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Ferguson_(convict)
I worked in NYC when this particular tragic incident occurred. Ferguson's history leading up to the shooting is interesting to note. The handgun, a Ruger P89 was purchased in California. He resided in CA for less than a year and waited the required 15 days before taking possession. He began carrying the weapon in a bag after he was robbed by two black men, and he could be heard by neighbors repeatedly chanting at night, "all the black people killing all the white people".
IMO, our society has never been able to reconcile our responsibility for dealing with mentally ill adults before they hurt themselves or other, with our God given right as individuals to be free and pursue happiness. I don't believe there is an answer to this problem. At least I don't believe we as a society will ever completely stop these tragic incidents from occurring.
In the meantime, if you have the means and inclination to stop a tragedy before or during, please do so.
1 out of every 4 people have some sort of mental issues.
theGinsue
01-10-2011, 18:11
lets imagine for a second that some type of ban goes into law. would you guys hand over your guns or what?
Ihowever all my weapons were lost in that tragic boating accident.....
Ditto. I just come to this site for "research".
I'm sure there is a lawyer already out there ready to defend him though- blame it on society, media, his parents, global warming, etc.
Tor
He was innocent before and after he ever pulled the trigger - be reason of insanity. It's not his fault for this tragic crime, it's societies and firearms fault. Had firearms not been available he never would have hurt anyone. /sarcasm
The good news is that AZ has some of the strictest "insanity plea" rules out there.
BPTactical
01-10-2011, 18:15
1 out of every 4 people have some sort of mental issues.
That's okay, 5 out of 4 have issues with fractions[Tooth]
2008f450
01-10-2011, 18:15
I saw a clip that says he will be represented by the same lawyer that represented Ted the unibomber and a few other nuts that got life in prison.
StagLefty
01-10-2011, 18:20
1 out of every 4 people have some sort of mental issues.
I resemble that remark !!!
Gcompact30
01-10-2011, 19:09
No disrespect to anyone here in this forum. It did not nor does it matter what type of test and or background you gave this guy. He made a decision and acted on it hurting innocent law abiding citizens. It did not matter if he had a 5 round magazine or a 30 magazine. Last I checked, six 5 round magazines give you 30 rounds. So politicians lowering the magazine capacity does not matter one bit. Innocent people were hurt lives were taken because of one idiot with a grudge of some kind. I don't blame his parents because I don't know anything about his parents. I blame him the coward that he is and will always be in this world or the next, if there is a next for him. Had he not purchased the hand gun legally he could have easily stole one from a burglary etc. We all know its really not that hard to look in your everyday classified ads and buy some sort of a gun. I think the private citizen can sell their guns to whom ever they choose. There are a lot of shady people out there who can be sane one day and insane the next day right? I am sorry for the rant, but lets place the blame with the coward who pulled the trigger and not the GUN. The gun did not go off by itself. My prayers go out to all that were hurt and their families in this tragic time. This post is G-30 opinions only and not the opinions of this site.
No disrespect to anyone here in this forum. It did not nor does it matter what type of test and or background you gave this guy. He made a decision and acted on it hurting innocent law abiding citizens. It did not matter if he had a 5 round magazine or a 30 magazine. Last I checked, six 5 round magazines give you 30 rounds. So politicians lowering the magazine capacity does not matter one bit. Innocent people were hurt lives were taken because of one idiot with a grudge of some kind. I don't blame his parents because I don't know anything about his parents. I blame him the coward that he is and will always be in this world or the next, if there is a next for him. Had he not purchased the hand gun legally he could have easily stole one from a burglary etc. We all know its really not that hard to look in your everyday classified ads and buy some sort of a gun. I think the private citizen can sell their guns to whom ever they choose. There are a lot of shady people out there who can be sane one day and insane the next day right? I am sorry for the rant, but lets place the blame with the coward who pulled the trigger and not the GUN. The gun did not go off by itself. My prayers go out to all that were hurt and their families in this tragic time. This post is G-30 opinions only and not the opinions of this site.
Whew, here I thought I wrote that, man, I'm glad I paid attention... [Tooth]
1 out of every 4 people have some sort of mental issues.
9 out of the 10 voices in my head still have a general positive consensus on the status of oatmeal as a breakfast food.
As soon as I heard about the shooting I knew it was going to get the knee jerk from the high ups. The problem as stated before was that now they are fearing for their own safety. I for one am going to keep as close an eye as possible on what gets publicly submitted for a while. I would not be surprised if something gets slipped in on the back of a bigger bill. we can only hope some one sees it and make sure that the anti-gunnites can not get it done.
Byte Stryke
01-10-2011, 19:17
9 out of the 10 voices in my head still have a general positive consensus on the status of oatmeal as a breakfast food.
+1
[LOL]
9 out of the 10 voices in my head still have a general positive consensus on the status of oatmeal as a breakfast food.
As soon as I heard about the shooting I knew it was going to get the knee jerk from the high ups. The problem as stated before was that now they are fearing for their own safety. I for one am going to keep as close an eye as possible on what gets publicly submitted for a while. I would not be surprised if something gets slipped in on the back of a bigger bill. we can only hope some one sees it and make sure that the anti-gunnites can not get it done.
Where we need to watch is the dems slipping it into a bill to undo obama care. That is a very serious and viable option for the dems. They will vote to undo obama care if the republicans take the hit and enact another ban or some type of restrictions.
Where we need to watch is the dems slipping it into a bill to undo obama care. That is a very serious and viable option for the dems. They will vote to undo obama care if the republicans take the hit and enact another ban or some type of restrictions.
And than re introduce it right before the 2012 elections or the lame duck session right after?
I don't think they will go on that big of a bill that they have worked so hard to get where it is. I think it will be something smaller like a defense budget bill or something that helps the economy out someway, stuff like that so that if the rep's don't vote yea on it the chances of them keeping their seats could be in jeopardy in 2012.
OneGuy67
01-10-2011, 19:44
What do you all think of the right to privacy when it comes to mental or emotional health issues? Should hospitals, clinics and private centers report to the local municipality, county or state authorities the names of the people being treated?
This is the issue at hand, it appears, from listening to the various talk radio heads. The fact he was allowed to lawfully purchase a firearm and passed a state/federal background check, which may or may not have included a mental health database. This was the same concerns brought up with the Virginia Tech shooter.
Should there be right to privacy? Should there be a database? Should we even ask the question about mental health?
Thoughts?
HBARleatherneck
01-10-2011, 19:48
delete
BPTactical
01-10-2011, 19:51
What do you all think of the right to privacy when it comes to mental or emotional health issues? Should hospitals, clinics and private centers report to the local municipality, county or state authorities the names of the people being treated?
This is the issue at hand, it appears, from listening to the various talk radio heads. The fact he was allowed to lawfully purchase a firearm and passed a state/federal background check, which may or may not have included a mental health database. This was the same concerns brought up with the Virginia Tech shooter.
Should there be right to privacy? Should there be a database? Should we even ask the question about mental health?
Thoughts?
Herein lies Pandora's Box.
It really seems you are trading one right for another.
I don't think that info should be shared. Crazy, or not, you shouldn't have your rights taken until you do something to lose them. I work with a person that I'd probably say is crazy, but I'm not going to stand in her way or call attention to her in any way to get her rights taken away just because she might make me feel uncomfortable. Anyone ever see Horton Hears a Who?
Herein lies Pandora's Box.
It really seems you are trading one right for another.
I am right up there with the people who believe some people should just not be able to own guns. I think we all know someone who even though they can go out and buy a gun, shouldn't be able to own one. The problem is, coming up with the way to weed those people out. You just can't do it without without imposing on everyone else.
OneGuy67
01-10-2011, 20:14
I just don't know...
I agree 'Bert, that it is Pandora's box and I also agree with my northern Marine friend about all the vets who are seeking treatment and the fear of losing rights or losing treatment.
Do we accept as a society a level of loss of lives due to mental instability for the sake of preserving rights? I'm going to have to think on that one for awhile before I can form an opinion one way or another.
Byte Stryke
01-10-2011, 20:19
I Agree, it's a total Pandora's box.
where is the line? at what point do we preemptively interfere with someones rights?
Who do we empower to say "He will probably, maybe commit a crime?"
Everyone has the potential to be a senseless nutcase shooting the place up, Most of us just decide to use common sense instead.
Byte Stryke
01-10-2011, 20:42
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/10/video-slain-girls-father-says-attack-the-price-of-a-free-society/
logic and common sense?
I am right up there with the people who believe some people should just not be able to own guns. I think we all know someone who even though they can go out and buy a gun, shouldn't be able to own one. The problem is, coming up with the way to weed those people out. You just can't do it without without imposing on everyone else.
I know people that shouldn't own guns, but I don't know anyone people who shouldn't be allowed to own guns. There is a subtle difference there.
Oneguy, no matter what decision is made, we'll have to accept a certain amount of lost lives due to mental disability/instability. That is just the reality of the issue and no law can change that. Futile legislation that will hurt more than help in my opinion.
hurley842002
01-10-2011, 21:00
Do we accept as a society a level of loss of lives due to mental instability for the sake of preserving rights?
^^^ this, i'm perfectly aware of the fact that I could be walking down the isle at Wal Mart, and some crazy ass hole could walk in and start shooting the place up. I don't expect the Government or any Law Enforcement agency to be around 24/7 to protect me, that Is why I provide myself with the means, and the training to protect myself and my loved ones. Take away ALL the guns in the United States, and crazy's will still find ways of hurting people, we will never be 100% safe from these people, if it's not a gun, it will be a knife, if it's not a knife it will be a bat, if it's not a bat it will be a rock, etc. etc.
Unfortunately the liberals are completely blind to everything i've mentioned.
Byte Stryke
01-10-2011, 21:15
Unfortunately the liberals are completely blind to everything i've mentioned.
Proof: Gun Free Zones
BPTactical
01-10-2011, 21:26
As a society we have certain moral obligations in regards to our actions. Unfortunately the mentally ill often do not have the same sense of obligation as a rationally thinking person does.
A firearm is one of the few items that can be purchased that carries a tremendous moral obligation to ones self and society.
Do there need to be additional checks and balances to ensure that one is of sufficient moral charachter and responsibility to own a firearm?
In a purely objective sense it really does not matter that this atrocity occurred with a firearm. It could have been executed with a vehicle, an aircraft, a 20# propane bottle or a rental truck filled with ampho.
Deranged individuals will use whatever is at their disposal to create the mayhem they seek.
But do legislation and lawmakers have the right to be the "Moral Police"?
I think one of the largest issues concerning firearms legislation is decisions by so few can have so much impact to so many.
This is one place where "Executive Authority" is very dangerous. 1 person can make a decision that affects so many.
Edit-As stated before-We must be willing to accept the consequences of the few to have the freedoms we enjoy. Implied risk.
If you want to drive a car, you have to be willing to accept the fact you may die in an auto accident. If we are to allow ownership of firearms to John Q Public we have to accept the fact that they will be mis-used by the mis-aligned on occasion.
Another question for discussion: Arizona is one of the most 2A friendly states in the Union with open carry and such. What do you suppose the spin would be had a CCW holder dropped the guy?
I still have faith in the checks and balances built into the system. I accept that some will think me naive. I also accept that there are people who mean well with their good intentions but believe with their misguided notions of how to prevent further tragedy in the world they can legislate behavior. It is an imperfect world and we do well to live as best we can with each other peacefully.
If any President decides to legislate with a pen, he/she faces the scrutiny of the legislature, courts and public opinion. No law or executive order stands forever. When we lose our ability to affect the government, the government loses it's ability to represent us. When that happens, bad things will happen.
I am glad we still live in a country where most of us can still discuss and disagree without having to kill those we disagree with. Simply put "You can't win them all, but that doesn't mean you should stop trying."
I know people that shouldn't own guns, but I don't know anyone people who shouldn't be allowed to own guns. There is a subtle difference there.
Oh god, this is going to start shit... [Coffee]
If they shouldn't be able to own guns, even in your words Stuart, why should they then be allowed to own them? We have rules and laws that protect us from blind people driving cars, stupid people from becoming doctors, known child molesters from becoming day care providers, the list goes on. There are laws that protect us from people that shouldn't be allowed to do certain things. My step brother for example two months ago took the top of a toilet lid and bashed in his parents bathroom sink reenacting a scene from zombieland. He did this while alone, not showing anyone what happened in the movie, he was alone. I have had to take him out of the mall here on halloween because he was going to take his "walking stick" (random tree branch) and try to knock a security guard out with it because he was told he couldn't bring it into the mall. This kid (19 yrs) does not know how to cope with the real world. He tried to WWF a family friend of theirs because he thought the guy cheated at battleship. Luckily, he couldn't pick him up. He has had problems his whole life like this, he had to be taken out of school because of his outbreaks. He should not be able to own a gun, period. He can however, walk into Cabela's right now and buy a rifle. That is just not right. Now, how do you find a way to weed people like this out without imposing on others? You can't. This is what the problem is. There is no way of taking care of this problem without pissing people off. I am just saying, some people shouldn't be able to own guns. That is it. I do not stand by the side of those that are going to try to infringe upon our rights. There is no good way to separate those that should be able to, and those that should not be able to, and untill there is (which there won't be) I do not support such a bill. Just have to wait till the crazies come out of the wood works.
Futile legislation that will hurt more than help in my opinion.
I agree with this. I would take the word (that) out of the sentence though. "Futile legislation will hurt more than help"
2008f450
01-10-2011, 22:20
^^^ this, i'm perfectly aware of the fact that I could be walking down the isle at Wal Mart, and some crazy ass hole could walk in and start shooting the place up. I don't expect the Government or any Law Enforcement agency to be around 24/7 to protect me, that Is why I provide myself with the means, and the training to protect myself and my loved ones. Take away ALL the guns in the United States, and crazy's will still find ways of hurting people, we will never be 100% safe from these people, if it's not a gun, it will be a knife, if it's not a knife it will be a bat, if it's not a bat it will be a rock, etc. etc.
Unfortunately the liberals are completely blind to everything i've mentioned.
Before the AZ shooting I saw a story about a man that was bludgened to death and castrated. No liberals calling for a ban on bats. They do these things to prey on the emotions of people. Unfortunatly a large portion of our country truly believes the big O and his buddies have their best interests in mind. I say turn the tables on the liberals. Ask them how many more jobs they will be killing by hurting the gun indusrty. How many thouasands of jobs will the big O have to explain for then. Maybe I am nuts for thinking this way. Ok rant over[Rant1]
I agree, the blame lies not iwth the tool, but the operator. But do we try to prevent crime by curtailing the rights of potential criminals, before they act, based on accusations that may or may not have any foundation? Try reading The Minority Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Minority_Report)by Philip K. Dick, for the potential consequences of such an agenda.
i don't understand why people can't comprehend that crazy people will do crazy things, regardless of your precious rules. in the end, by tying the hands of the citizens, you are just taking the ability of the citizens to protect themselves. so basically, if a police officer isn't by your side and someone tries to hurt you, tough luck. so what if he couldn't get a gun, maybe he would have stabbed someone. maybe he would have gotten the gun illegally (not that hard to do). who knows.
i can't believe people didn't learn from the basic principles we learned from prohibition. if you make guns and ammo illegal or tightly controlled, it opens a new criminal market (a very profitable one at that) that will simply lead to more criminal activity against citizens who are unable to protect themselves
BPTactical
01-10-2011, 22:55
And in other news Lautenberg (D-NJ) has announced on his website that he and his staff are drafting a "High Capacity Clip" ban to introduce when the House resumes session.
Never let a crisis go to waste. Frickin pathetic these scumbags will use a tragedy to further their personal agendas.
The one thing that has been conspicuous by it's absence since Obama was elected: At the DNC he adamantly stated he was going to rid the streets of "Assault Weapons" permanently.
He has said nothing as yet. He lost the majority in Congress. He knows he will not be re-elected in 12.
He is as dangerous on this issue as a wounded animal in a corner. He is still trying to get Andrew Travers to head the BATF. He now has a spooked administration full of elected officials that are damn well aware the public is not happy with the political scene. He has the media in his hip pocket.
The pieces are in place....
Spyder, your step brother is a perfect example. Has he walked into a Cabella's and bought a rifle yet?
Do you think that if one day out of the blue someone told him that he wasn't allowed to own a gun, that the very next thing he'd do, is go and get a gun? Similar to being told that he couldn't take his "walking stick" into the mall?
The government is already known to purposely misdiagnose veterans to meet the desires of those in charge. I can't even count how many times I've heard news pieces about VET doctors refusing to acknowledge that someone has PTSD because they are ordered not to. Make a law requiring an official bill of clean health to purchase a gun and see how quickly that back fires in everyone's collective faces.
Herein lies Pandora's Box.
It really seems you are trading one right for another.
we need to look at what the founding fathers would have done.
Byte Stryke
01-10-2011, 23:44
Make a law requiring an official bill of clean health to purchase a gun and see how quickly that back fires in everyone's collective faces.
Playing devil's advocate on a slippery slope:
This year its Mental issues...
Next year its non-violent criminal background
The they will pick over your Tax records
Then its Driving record,
Marital record/Status
and then religious denomination
Because you know someone will publish a study saying that this demographic with these particular attributes are the lowest risk for gun-violence.
and then the second will be gone altogether.
[Rant2]
And in other news Lautenberg (D-NJ) has announced on his website that he and his staff are drafting a "High Capacity Clip" ban to introduce when the House resumes session.
Never let a crisis go to waste. Frickin pathetic these scumbags will use a tragedy to further their personal agendas.
The one thing that has been conspicuous by it's absence since Obama was elected: At the DNC he adamantly stated he was going to rid the streets of "Assault Weapons" permanently.
He has said nothing as yet. He lost the majority in Congress. He knows he will not be re-elected in 12.
He is as dangerous on this issue as a wounded animal in a corner. He is still trying to get Andrew Travers to head the BATF. He now has a spooked administration full of elected officials that are damn well aware the public is not happy with the political scene. He has the media in his hip pocket.
The pieces are in place....
yup I see this causing issues
Click (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=6117249&SRCCODE=GOOGLEBASE&cm_mmc_o=VRqCjC7BBTkwCjCECjCE)
Byte Stryke
01-10-2011, 23:50
yup I see this causing issues
Click (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=6117249&SRCCODE=GOOGLEBASE&cm_mmc_o=VRqCjC7BBTkwCjCECjCE)
WIN!
[ROFL1]
Oh god, this is going to start shit... [Coffee]
If they shouldn't be able to own guns, even in your words Stuart, why should they then be allowed to own them? We have rules and laws that protect us from blind people driving cars,
driving is a privilege, not a right.
stupid people from becoming doctors,
schools and employers will make that ultimate decision.
known child molesters from becoming day care providers,
background checks and business license applications should take care of this.
the list goes on. There are laws that protect us from people that shouldn't be allowed to do certain things. My step brother for example two months ago took the top of a toilet lid and bashed in his parents bathroom sink reenacting a scene from zombieland. He did this while alone, not showing anyone what happened in the movie, he was alone. I have had to take him out of the mall here on halloween because he was going to take his "walking stick" (random tree branch) and try to knock a security guard out with it because he was told he couldn't bring it into the mall. This kid (19 yrs) does not know how to cope with the real world. He tried to WWF a family friend of theirs because he thought the guy cheated at battleship. Luckily, he couldn't pick him up. He has had problems his whole life like this, he had to be taken out of school because of his outbreaks. He should not be able to own a gun, period. He can however, walk into Cabela's right now and buy a rifle. That is just not right. Now, how do you find a way to weed people like this out without imposing on others? You can't. This is what the problem is. There is no way of taking care of this problem without pissing people off.
Sounds like his family needs to get him help. His family needs to be the one to report that he needs help, he needs attention and he shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun. No one person has or should have the ability to tell others what to do, but family members are the front line, the head of the pack and should have a majority of the say in what happens to their family. I am sure the parents of Loughner are wishing right now they had reported their son, got him some help, got him on the guns no buy list. think of the reactions they are facing now toward them for not stepping up and doing the right thing. think of the scrutiny and anguish they have to live with the rest of their lives because the actions of their son. his old friends can brush him off, call him a loser, say they weren't really his friend. FBI can say he slipped through the cracks, the schools can say the same thing. But that parents always have to live with the fact that their son is going to be called a domestic terrorist, represented by the same lawyer as the OKC bomber and the uni-bomber.
how would that make you feel if that same thing happened to your step-brother/parents. They are the ones who will suffer greatly. (I am not attacking you at all or family or anyone, just showing an example here, please don't take it personally at all).
My point is that the people who are around others need to show some responsibility. we need to watch out for each other so others don't get hurt or hurt themselves. as a society, as a country, as a species. Obviously this doesn't mean there still won't be those who don't fall through the cracks, but showing some personal responsibility will go a long ways.
I am just saying, some people shouldn't be able to own guns. That is it. I do not stand by the side of those that are going to try to infringe upon our rights. There is no good way to separate those that should be able to, and those that should not be able to, and untill there is (which there won't be) I do not support such a bill. Just have to wait till the crazies come out of the wood works.
And in other news Lautenberg (D-NJ) has announced on his website that he and his staff are drafting a "High Capacity Clip" ban to introduce when the House resumes session.
Never let a crisis go to waste. Frickin pathetic these scumbags will use a tragedy to further their personal agendas.
The one thing that has been conspicuous by it's absence since Obama was elected: At the DNC he adamantly stated he was going to rid the streets of "Assault Weapons" permanently.
He has said nothing as yet. He lost the majority in Congress. He knows he will not be re-elected in 12.
He is as dangerous on this issue as a wounded animal in a corner. He is still trying to get Andrew Travers to head the BATF. He now has a spooked administration full of elected officials that are damn well aware the public is not happy with the political scene. He has the media in his hip pocket.
The pieces are in place....
and it definitely worries me. I see this as well.
My point is that the people who are around others need to show some responsibility. we need to watch out for each other so others don't get hurt or hurt themselves. as a society, as a country, as a species. Obviously this doesn't mean there still won't be those who don't fall through the cracks, but showing some personal responsibility will go a long ways.
This is a problem these days with the litigatious society we have become there is very little personal responsibility left. everybody thinks their problems can be blamed on everyone else, and that they do not have to buck up and put on their daddy khakis and say "ya I fucked up what do i need to do to make it up." Instead it is "no it is not my fault that my car wiped out a flock of school children the car company needs to put radar on so it doesn not happen again."
Spyder, your step brother is a perfect example. Has he walked into a Cabella's and bought a rifle yet?
No, he has not. The point I am trying to bring up, is he could. I firmly believe that if he had a gun, the next person who pisses him off, would be shot. No doubt in my mind, or my wifes. His parents, my inlaws, are worthless. The mother self medicated him since he was 5. They see nothing wrong with him and will argue till they couldn't speak anymore. This boy, 2nd amendment or not, should not be able to purchase a gun.
Do you think that if one day out of the blue someone told him that he wasn't allowed to own a gun, that the very next thing he'd do, is go and get a gun? Similar to being told that he couldn't take his "walking stick" into the mall?
Well, no. The walking stick, he already had, and was in the mall and was told to get out, or take the stick out. Sorry, I didn't make that clear. One day though, the thought of owning a gun, could strike him as a good idea, or just plain fun. In that case, he would become a dangerous gun owner and it would only be a matter of time.
The government is already known to purposely misdiagnose veterans to meet the desires of those in charge. I can't even count how many times I've heard news pieces about VET doctors refusing to acknowledge that someone has PTSD because they are ordered not to. Make a law requiring an official bill of clean health to purchase a gun and see how quickly that back fires in everyone's collective faces.
I said nothing about Vetrans did I? I have a very close friend from the 82nd with PTSD that I trust with my familys life. He has his own problems that he is dealing with in his head, but when it comes down to it, I trust him. One of the few people I do trust. Again, I need to make this clear, I am talking about a few select people that I do not believe should have this right. They are not only dangerous to themselfs, but to any other poor person that might set them off. That is who I am talking about.
I know plain and simple, there is no law or bill they can pass that will work for what I am saying. It is how it is and should not get any worse because of the lunatics coming out with guns blazing. What I was saying was a very simple concept, some people should just not be able to own guns. I didn't say they should pass any new bills or laws. I didn't say to take away our Vet's rights. I said, in plain simple words how I feel about some people, even gave an example of one in which I am talking about.
I know you didn't say anything about vets. I thought I put enough spaces in there that it would be clear that it was an additional thought.
I know what you are saying, but how can you say, "Some people shouldn't be allowed to own guns" if you don't, at the same time, support some way to enforce your feeling about some people not being able to own guns?
There are a lot of people that I think shouldn't be able to drive cars or raise children, but there is nothing I can do about it, and wouldn't support a law because I know it'd get out of hand and potentially affect me one day.
So, what those of you that are arguing with me are saying is that you are perfectly ok with someone like my mentally unstable brother in law having a gun on him, and possibly in the same room with you and your family? By that I mean he goes to Denver and the Springs a lot and if he had a gun, it would be in his pocket without a doubt. So, I mean a public place, but possibly only feet away. You are really ok with someone who would fight you over asking him what he was looking at (I mean that in the context of if he stared at your wife or child for some reason and you said that)?
I know you didn't say anything about vets. I thought I put enough spaces in there that it would be clear that it was an additional thought.
I know what you are saying, but how can you say, "Some people shouldn't be allowed to own guns" if you don't, at the same time, support some way to enforce your feeling about some people not being able to own guns?
There are a lot of people that I think shouldn't be able to drive cars or raise children, but there is nothing I can do about it, and wouldn't support a law because I know it'd get out of hand and potentially affect me one day.
I am saying that I don't support all of the BS that they are trying to get passed. Yet at the same time, I openly acknowledge the fact that some people shouldn't be able to buy guns. That is all. I even quoted one of your other lines earlier about how new laws will only screw things up worse.
There is no guaranty that he wouldn't have a gun. So I don't worry about whether he should have one or not.
Byte Stryke
01-11-2011, 01:05
With the understanding that I Feel it should be implemented in only rare instances; Yes, you should be able to report someone for suspected imminent danger/threat to self or others.
"I'm calling to report (Family/friend) because he is always talking about how he should shoot (Person) because of this or that and he has the means."
No at this point, the police look into it, watch the guy. investigate and not do a knee-jerk and go all gestapo.
I Dont want to see some "Minority report" bullshit where people are arrested and convicted on what might have happened.
I guess what I' saying is if Loughner's Parents or other relatives had notified officials, they investigate it and pick him up at wal-mart asking about his recent purchases that day, Maybe that 9 year old little girl would get to see 10.
I see it as enforcing the rules we already have.
"Are you a Nut job? All of your relatives, co-workers and neighbors are saying you are threatening a public official, we have evidence of this and you have the means, so lets check you out."
With the understanding that I Feel it should be implemented in only rare instances; Yes, you should be able to report someone for suspected imminent danger/threat to self or others.
"I'm calling to report (Family/friend) because he is always talking about how he should shoot (Person) because of this or that and he has the means."
No at this point, the police look into it, watch the guy. investigate and not do a knee-jerk and go all gestapo.
I Dont want to see some "Minority report" bullshit where people are arrested and convicted on what might have happened.
I guess what I' saying is if Loughner's Parents or other relatives had notified officials, they investigate it and pick him up at wal-mart asking about his recent purchases that day, Maybe that 9 year old little girl would get to see 10.
I see it as enforcing the rules we already have.
"Are you a Nut job? All of your relatives, co-workers and neighbors are saying you are threatening a public official, we have evidence of this and you have the means, so lets check you out."
That would be great if we could report them or have them looked into. Even something as simple as that would get out of control if it were to come around as a possible solution. It only takes once for these people, (my inlaw) to snap and kill someone, just once.
Oh yeah, and I'm not arguing with you. I don't want your step brother to have a gun either.
:) <-- See? I am smiling.
:) <-- See? I am smiling.
[Tooth] K, that was funny.
We as voters allow the American judicial system to operate under the premise that it is better for us as a civilized society to let ten murderers stand trial and go free rather than have one falsely accused innocent person be found guilty and locked up for life.
It, therefore, stands to reason that it would be better for us as a civilized society to let ten crazy people buy guns rather than keep one innocent or sane person from buying a gun.
Or, maybe it would be better if we just enact Kalifornia type gun laws nation wide. Then we could all be as safe as everyone in South Central L.A.
Theoretically, if a law were to pass restricting sales to those with medically diagnosed mental health issues, where would the standard lie? Would they say that anyone that has ever sought counseling for anything would be ineligible to buy a firearm? In this country, where antidepressants are dispensed like PEZ? How about people that see a relationship counselor? Or join a support group for cancer survivors? There are potentially millions that might be excluded.
Theoretically, if a law were to pass restricting sales to those with medically diagnosed mental health issues, where would the standard lie? Would they say that anyone that has ever sought counseling for anything would be ineligible to buy a firearm? In this country, where antidepressants are dispensed like PEZ? How about people that see a relationship counselor? Or join a support group for cancer survivors? There are potentially millions that might be excluded.
yup.
It's all about the power, and this is just another facet of the "if it saves only one child, it's worth it" argument.
giving the government that much oversight is very dangerous.
once they get that inch, it will grow by miles and we will never get that ground back.
There are millions who drive every day in unsafe ways, and shouldn't even be on the roads or even own a car. Yet they do.
even people that have multiple infractions, dui's, and arrests are still on the road, many times illegally.
the more govt tries to fix things the more broken they get.
anyone who believes that the governtment can fairly control and regulate the competency of any and everyone that wants to buy a gun is a fool.
vets with PTSD will get denied, while crazy relatives of the rich will get approved.
the VA tech guy, the columbine kids, luby's diner, and tons of others all have one thing in common ... they were nuts.
the knee jerk call for more gun control comes from emotionally deficient survivors and relatives of victims like diane finestein, sarah brady, and cindy sheehan who do not have the strength of character or emotional fortitude to cope with the trauma of bad things. (or in other words, life)
they are the face on the front of the grill, but the engine is powered by the hypocritical left who's aim is to, quite frankly, destroy america and remake it how they see fit. (europe, where the people are subjects and those in charge have ultimate power)
they claim it's for the children, or the greater good (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUpbOliTHJY)
they are full of it.
the hypocrisy of the left is a whole other thread.. but briefly consider 9/11. why was there no move from the left to ban airplanes, tall buildings, or islam. after all if there were no planes then the hijackers couldn't have crashed them, right? it's huck finn vs. the color purple.
call me paranoid but I just ordered a couple 33 round glock mags in case they get outlawed. because this time it wasn't just the blood of victims to fill future statistics.
this time it happened to one of their very own and it might just light a fire under their federally funded fannies.
Geology Rocks
01-11-2011, 10:16
Saw this on another forum...these are the people making our laws.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
joe
2008f450
01-11-2011, 10:23
Saw this on another forum...these are the people making our laws.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
joe
[Bang] and they keep getting elected
BPTactical
01-11-2011, 10:25
[Bang] and they keep getting elected
And this is where the real accountability lies. We willingly put them in office.
2008f450
01-11-2011, 10:29
And this is where the real accountability lies. We willingly put them in office.
Unfortunatly most of "We the people" dont really look into what the politicians do or really want. They just hear "more jobs" or "lower taxes" or "safer streets". Its the world we live in. Too busy to sit down and look into whats really going on.
Byte Stryke
01-11-2011, 10:33
Saw this on another forum...these are the people making our laws.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
joe
I Never thought I would say this about anyone in the media.
I applaud the interviewer for staying his course and forcing an answer after several sidestep attempts
Geology Rocks
01-11-2011, 10:41
Unfortunatly most of "We the people" dont really look into what the politicians do or really want. They just hear "more jobs" or "lower taxes" or "safer streets". Its the world we live in. Too busy to sit down and look into whats really going on.
I personally think the problem lies in that we put them in office for what they promise to do, then the second they get there they change that and do whatever they damn well please.
joe
funkfool
01-11-2011, 12:33
Saw this on another forum...these are the people making our laws.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
joe
At least they aren't after 'heat seeking' ammo...
At least they aren't after 'heat seeking' ammo...
No, but they did go after the special baby-cop-gramdma-killer-supersniper- assualt-armor-piercing-blow-up-a-plane ammo
Potentially *NSFW*
SCXtfR0_roE
MtqufzEFCzw
YoIKlO20RqM
Potentially *NSFW*
Potentially *NSFW*
SCXtfR0_roE
MtqufzEFCzw
YoIKlO20RqM
Potentially *NSFW*
awesome videos[Beer]
Is there a site to watch full episodes of Bullsh!t? I enjoyed those videos as well.
Looked on netflix and hulu, none on either. Their ABC webpage doesn't load full episodes either.
Is there a site to watch full episodes of Bullsh!t? I enjoyed those videos as well.
Looked on netflix and hulu, none on either. Their ABC webpage doesn't load full episodes either.
Here ya go, Tim
http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/episodes.do
are you a comcast subscriber?
http://www.fancast.com/tv/Penn-%26-Teller:-Bullshit!/92985/full-episodes
2008f450
01-11-2011, 16:46
[ROFL1] I wasnt a big fan of them until now. That was funny.
I personally think the problem lies in that we put them in office for what they promise to do, then the second they get there they change that and do whatever they damn well please.
joe
What's with this "we" bull crap?
I don't vote on what they say. I vote based on their past record. Usually it's the voting record but sometimes I have go on what they have said and did in the past. I don't vote for them if past actions, or sometimes words, don't match up with their current words. It used to be harder to get their past record but with the information available on the internet there is no reason to even listen to them when they're campaigning.
It is very rare that past actions don't indicate future actions.
Your comment is true for a lot of people but if they believe what they hear on the campaign trail they deserve what they get. Just don't include everybody in that we bull.
DeusExMachina
01-11-2011, 17:52
Didnt work with Gillibrand. Former pro-gun rep turned Schumer senate slut. But that's NY. Shouldnt have expected truth. She wasn't even elected anyway.
Geology Rocks
01-11-2011, 17:55
Just for added affect I watched those videos with my AR15 on my lap.
joe
Saw this on another forum...these are the people making our laws.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
joe
You think that one is bad, watch it through, and then on the next set of video's that you can select from, pick the "heat seeking bullet" video. Dear god these people are fucking stupid.
AIM Surplus is totally out of 30rd AR mags...
http://www.tothecenter.com/index.php?readmore=15026
Police Stopped Jared Loughner’s Car the Day of the Shooting
Advert
The Game and Fish Department officer had no probable cause to search the vehicle.
Earlier in the day that Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot, Jared Loughner was pulled over for running a red light on an access road only a few miles from the Safeway supermarket where the shooting later occurred, according to The New York Times.
Jim Paxon, a spokesman for the Arizona Game and Fish Department, said the contact between Loughner and the officer was very cordial.
The officer reported Loughner was forthcoming with his license, registration, and insurance. After a visual examination of the vehicle, the officer had no cause to search it or detain Loughner.
Investigators are certain that Loughner did not have an accomplice, and they have found no connections to political extremists. Local and federal authorities are now focusing on piecing together the timeline of the day of the shooting and countering the expected insanity defense.
Six people were killed and 14 were wounded in the shootings. Giffords continues to recover from a gunshot wound to the head at the University Medical Center in Tuscon, Arizona.
Lex_Luthor
01-13-2011, 13:28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX8mp6rkf_Q&feature=related [LOL]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX8mp6rkf_Q&feature=related [LOL]
I like that.
Does anyone know where I can pick up some of these heat seeking rounds?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ&feature=related
[ROFL1]
I've been using that sort of round when I am way out in the wilderness for shooting deer, so I can eat some that is cooked by my round while processing the rest.
Byte Stryke
01-13-2011, 14:11
Does anyone know where I can pick up some of these heat seeking rounds?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ&feature=related
[ROFL1]
This is what happens when you give free copies of MechWarrior 4 to the State Legislature
Or
Just what in the fuck is that Bi*ch smoking?!?!?!!?!?!
and more to the point, where do I get some?
[ROFL1]
This is what happens when you give free copies of MechWarrior 4 to the State Legislature
Or
Just what in the fuck is that Bi*ch smoking?!?!?!!?!?!
and more to the point, where do I get some?
[ROFL1]
I think you have to be in politics to get ahold of the really good shit. [ROFL1] Then they just hand it out like candy, put it in your drink... [Coffee]
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.