Shooting in Las Vegas @ Jason Aldean Concert

#177
#177
The goal of the left is to ban all firearms. There are numerous examples on the internet of them saying this very thing to their supporters. They will never say it out in the open but behind closed doors, they do.
 
#178
#178
BigOrangeD said:
The goal of the left is to ban all firearms. There are numerous examples on the internet of them saying this very thing to their supporters. They will never say it out in the open but behind closed doors, they do.
Click to expand...

I love trusting what I read on the internet. It's never failed me before.
 
#181
#181
crusse10 said:
So they are saying it out in the open? Or are they not? But they're saying it to their supporters?
Click to expand...

Some say it in closed circles and have been recorded. This is not a secret. I know not all DEMs want to ban all firearms but many do if it weren't for groups like the NRA fighting for our 2nd Amendment Rights. There are also plenty of left wing citizens that want an all out gun ban. Again, none of this is secret. The evidence is out there if you look for it.
 
#182
#182
BigOrangeD said:
Some say it in closed circles and have been recorded. This is not a secret. I know not all DEMs want to ban all firearms but many do if it weren't for groups like the NRA fighting for our 2nd Amendment Rights. There are also plenty of left wing citizens that want an all out gun ban. Again, none of this is secret. The evidence is out there if you look for it.
Click to expand...

The NRA isn't fighting for your rights, just like almost all lobbies. They're fighting for the businesses who fund them to not only continue making money, but have future opportunities at making even more money. They just have to convince the voting base that is most likely to own a gun for protection or hunting that the goal of the NRA is protecting them.
 
#183
#183
crusse10 said:
The NRA isn't fighting for your rights, just like almost all lobbies. They're fighting for the businesses who fund them to not only continue making money, but have future opportunities at making even more money. They just have to convince the voting base that is most likely to own a gun for protection or hunting that the goal of the NRA is protecting them.
Click to expand...

Well I cannot argue on that. You may have a point but they get a lot of their funding from Gun Owners and know it. The end result is they do make a difference for gun owners and get a lot of blame from the left as to why they cannot ban guns.

FYI:
Here is a good link with a few examples of some our Political Elites that admit they would like to ban all guns if it were possible to get the votes:

The most famous one of all is Queen Feinstein.

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-laws/no-one-wants-to-ban-or-confiscate-guns-huh-these-quotes-from-anti-gun-leaders-say-otherwise/
 
#184
#184
For those not as familiar with the firearm status in this country: there are an estimated 300,000,000 guns in the U.S. (maybe far more than that). A huge portion of firearm transactions occur "off the books," making it impossible to even identify by whom and where a huge chunk of them are possessed. I would hazard to guess that a disproportionate number of these "off the radar" weapons are of the military-style or illegally-modified variety.

When you think about the scope of this issue, it's fairly evident that passing some tighter restrictions on backgrounds checks, screenings, etc (which I am in favor of) won't make even a tiny dent in the overall availability of weapons. People who want to obtain a firearm (or even many of them) will never have any trouble doing so in the U.S. Politicizing a tragedy like this and blaming it on a party or gun control stance is both illogical and insensitive.
 
#185
#185
hog88 said:
I've got one for you.

How about when a person is prescribed anti-depressants or other mood altering or mental health drugs the Dr. has to report it to the local authorities and the NICS? The local authorities then confiscate all firearms in the residence and that person is barred from purchasing more until cleared by some sort of mental health board.
Click to expand...

No
 
#187
#187
kiddiedoc said:
For those not as familiar with the firearm status in this country: there are an estimated 300,000,000 guns in the U.S. (maybe far more than that). A huge portion of firearm transactions occur "off the books," making it impossible to even identify by whom and where a huge chunk of them are possessed. I would hazard to guess that a disproportionate number of these "off the radar" weapons are of the military-style or illegally-modified variety.

When you think about the scope of this issue, it's fairly evident that passing some tighter restrictions on backgrounds checks, screenings, etc (which I am in favor of) won't make even a tiny dent in the overall availability of weapons. People who want to obtain a firearm (or even many of them) will never have any trouble doing so in the U.S. Politicizing a tragedy like this and blaming it on a party or gun control stance is both illogical and insensitive.
Click to expand...

That's been the assumed stance for a long time. But is that correct? Maybe some of these people want their deaths to not be in vain. Maybe some of those shot and killed don't want to just be another name on a long list of victims of the worst-shooting-spree-in-US-history-since-the-last-one-a-year-before. It just seems wrong to let these deaths, just like Pulse, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Charleston, Columbine, and all the others to be nothing more than the cost of living in America. Arguably, that seems way more insensitive.
 
#188
#188
hog88 said:
If the opposition was remotely interested in preventing mass shootings vs just banning certain firearms one would think they might discuss such ideas.
Click to expand...

It has been brought up before but there are privacy concerns and HIPAA laws to protect individuals from being discriminated against. It's a tough issue. There is always a downside. None of us like the Government spying on us. It always comes down to how much privacy and freedom do we want to give up in order to feel safer. Unintended consequences are almost always a part of any legislative process when it comes to security.
 
#189
#189
BigOrangeD said:
It has been brought up before but there are privacy concerns and HIPAA laws to protect individuals from being discriminated against. It's a tough issue. There is always a downside. None of us like the Government spying on us. It always comes down to how much privacy and freedom do we want to give up in order to feel safer. Unintended consequences are almost always a part of any legislative process when it comes to security.
Click to expand...

The other problem would be people who need to be on antidepressants but refusing to take the prescription to keep their firearms.
 
#190
#190
BigOrangeD said:
It has been brought up before but there are privacy concerns and HIPAA laws to protect individuals from being discriminated against. It's a tough issue. There is always a downside. None of us like the Government spying on us. It always comes down to how much privacy and freedom do we want to give up in order to feel safer. Unintended consequences are almost always a part of any legislative process when it comes to security.
Click to expand...

The argument points out the hypocrisy of the anti gun crowd. They have no problem advocating for restricting individual rights specifically spelled out in the constitution but do not want to consider invading the privacy of the mentally ill.

I think if you look at the shootings Crusse mentioned above you will find most if not all were committed by individuals that had at one time or currently on medication for a mental issue.
 
#191
#191
hog88 said:
The argument points out the hypocrisy of the anti gun crowd. They have no problem advocating for restricting individual rights specifically spelled out in the constitution but do not want to consider invading the privacy of the mentally ill.

I think if you look at the shootings Crusse mentioned above you will find most if not all were committed by individuals that had at one time or currently on medication for a mental issue.
Click to expand...

agree
 
#193
#193
crusse10 said:
That's been the assumed stance for a long time. But is that correct? Maybe some of these people want their deaths to not be in vain. Maybe some of those shot and killed don't want to just be another name on a long list of victims of the worst-shooting-spree-in-US-history-since-the-last-one-a-year-before. It just seems wrong to let these deaths, just like Pulse, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Charleston, Columbine, and all the others to be nothing more than the cost of living in America. Arguably, that seems way more insensitive.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point. There is no evidence to suggest that tighter gun control laws would have any effect on diminishing this type of attack. Mental health awareness? Better security at hotels? I don't know.

Now, if it comes out that this whack-job purchased his weapons legally with thorough background checks, obtained legal parts to convert them to full-auto capability, used consumer-grade ammo, etc, then maybe we can find some direction to point our efforts.
 
#194
#194
hog88 said:
The argument points out the hypocrisy of the anti gun crowd. They have no problem advocating for restricting individual rights specifically spelled out in the constitution but do not want to consider invading the privacy of the mentally ill.
Click to expand...

I don't think many people are supporting stopping lawful citizens in the proper emotional state from legally owning handguns or weaponry designed for hunting. I don't believe that when they wrote it, they could even conceive of what guns could become. So to say "specifically spelled out," I have to disagree.
 
#195
#195
kiddiedoc said:
You are missing the point. There is no evidence to suggest that tighter gun control laws would have any effect on diminishing this type of attack. Mental health awareness? Better security at hotels? I don't know.

Now, if it comes out that this whack-job purchased his weapons legally with thorough background checks, obtained legal parts to convert them to full-auto capability, used consumer-grade ammo, etc, then maybe we can find some direction to point our efforts.
Click to expand...

I've heard some stuff from interviews with the owner of the gun show where he got some of his guns. So at least some were obtained legally. And it's possible that he got some from gun shows legally as well (avoiding the checks).

And is it really missing the point? A guy tries to bring a bomb on a plane in the form of liquids and is stopped. Within days, I can no longer bring a bottle of shampoo with me on vacation cause it holds more than 5 ounces. Can't even bring a water bottle with me. And you know what? I deal with it.
 
#196
#196
crusse10 said:
I don't think many people are supporting stopping lawful citizens in the proper emotional state from legally owning handguns or weaponry designed for hunting. I don't believe that when they wrote it, they could even conceive of what guns could become. So to say "specifically spelled out," I have to disagree.
Click to expand...

Same could be said of the 1st amendment and the internet.
 
#197
#197
hog88 said:
Same could be said of the 1st amendment and the internet.
Click to expand...

But also, too many people think that "free speech" means that you can say whatever the hell you want without backlash when that's just not the case. You can't get prosecuted for it.

Also a lot of people who need to make sure they have their first amendment rights (see: Nazi protesters and those arguing for their rights) think that certain religions are invalid and are openly supportive of denying them rights based on their religions.
 
#198
#198
crusse10 said:
But also, too many people think that "free speech" means that you can say whatever the hell you want without backlash when that's just not the case. You can't get prosecuted for it.

Also a lot of people who need to make sure they have their first amendment rights (see: Nazi protesters and those arguing for their rights) think that certain religions are invalid and are openly supportive of denying them rights based on their religions.
Click to expand...

You are seriously veering off subject.
 
#199
#199
Freak said:
Oh, I see what you're saying. You think 'regulated' militia means we should have gun regulations?

Yeah, I don't interpret it that way at all.

Here's one summary that I relate more to, personally.



http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Click to expand...

I will grant you contextual semantics of the time in which it was written. However there is still a good bit of conjecture at the end of the that definition as to the intent of how the amendment was written.

I could just as easily apply that definition, to calibrate and maintain proper working order, to mean oversight is necessary when things start getting out of order such as mass shooting happening on an almost daily bases.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top