Just as dangerous as a man with a gun, but in the end, let's hope that intelligence win and the gun laws are changed! What a peaceful world we could live in. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by RICHARD
Printable View
Just as dangerous as a man with a gun, but in the end, let's hope that intelligence win and the gun laws are changed! What a peaceful world we could live in. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by RICHARD
I am for tighter gun control laws - background checks and tighter rules concerning ownership and the sales of any weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randi
The problems arise when you have people who
Don't want their health/mental records looked at.
Do not want to be bothered to go to a gun safety class.
Do not want to register their weapons - for fear that the gov't. will come for them.
People who have an irrational fear about weapons and the people who own them.
Not all people who own guns want
Assault weapons
Machine guns
Large capacity magazines
The people that are visible in the media and the government DO NOT speak for the people who enjoy owning and
using guns for sport or hunting.
One of the funniest 'talking points' in the media is the portrayal of gun owners being "Gun Nuts" and wanting to have machine guns, hand grenades and living in bunkers with a year's worth of food.
It's a sensational look at the whole gun issue.
----------------------
Here in America we have a saying that goes soemthing like this.......
We have the freedom of speech, but that does not give is the right to scream "FIRE" in a crowed theater.
It would cause a panic and people will get hurt.
The people screaming 'FIRE' are the same people that are going on and on about the evils of gun ownership.
Most of them would not own a firearm, hold a firearm or go to learn the proper use of and shooting one.
It's just like me commenting on birthing a baby.
I can watch it, but I can't comment on it because it's not me on the table.;)
Changing the firearms laws in the United States to end gun violence it putting a band-aid on arterial bleeding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randi
Legal firearms owners aren't the problem.
Criminals who break the laws are the problem. Felons cannot legally own guns.
With that being the case, combined with the fact that 90+% (FBI stat, want the precise figure, look it up, it's readily available) of those who commit crimes with firearms were already convicted criminals BEFORE they ever got their hands on a firearm (read.....they were already legally unable to purchase a firearm), it clearly shows the problem isn't firearms. It's societal.
Legalize marijuana and decriminalize certain other drugs and the funding for the gangs dries up.
Provide realistic education for children that enables them to get employment on graduating high school and gang membership isn't so "cool".
Make parents be parents, and take children away from those who are categorically unable to care for them.(yes, that may mean recreating orphanages. Regulated, they would be a damned sight better than what many children have as parents)
Open mental health records to the NICS system.
All of this would have an effect on firearms issues.
None of this would affect already lawful owners.
Silence from the the ES echo chamber, typical.
Why don't you just drop it???? Oh - I know why - you just can't stand peace. :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
Why so angry?Quote:
Originally Posted by pomtzu
I don't see any anger in that statement - other than the little "mad man".Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
I just find it extremely annoying when one has to the stir the pot to keep a confrontation going. Taunting people into a response is childish - like you tried in another thread where a totally innocent comment was made about "snow", and you had to make a totally uncalled for and inappropriate comment about/to the person who posted it.
Pomtzu, his signature says it all! :rolleyes:
Its funny you dont find it annoying when ES or Liz does the same thing on a far more regular basis, double standard maybe?Quote:
Originally Posted by pomtzu
I kinda like that I have my own post stalker now with you.
So, why so angry?
Me a stalker??? - that's really funny. All you need to do is look in the mirror to see who is the stalker here - a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Don't flatter yourself by thinking that I am following you.Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Liz or ES, but I most definitely disagree with you and your rude and crude tactics. I suppose that your comment about "snow" wasn't rude and crude ??? - but there you go again - the pot calling the kettle black. Obviously that shoe fit you very well and you are very familiar with snow in all of it's forms.
And I still see no anger in anything I've posted. Try disgust on for size.
And I'm curious, blue, so maybe you can answer this for me. This is a pet forum - right??? Well then why is it that you never (except on an extremely rare occasion), post anything about pets - be it yours or anyone else's??? You come here only to be rude and crude - abrupt and abrasive - as you choose to call it. Why don't you take your nastiness to a forum that would appreciate your m.o. - I've heard that there are plenty of them out there and I'm certain that you would be more than welcome to join many of them.
Nope - still no anger on my part.
Have a super happy day!!! :rolleyes:
I totally agree with Pomtzu. Just for the record.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by pomtzu
Regarding the media and them feeding the outrage about the Sandy Hook shootings?
IF there was few minutes at the end of any new broadcast devoted to clearing up mistakes made during the show?
There probably would be NO news on the tube.
----------------------
During my bouts of insomnia I tune into the rebroadcasts of the days news, any talking head will make me stop and listen.
For the BS, the hairdos and to watch people foam at the mouth.
I also watch for stupidity. Then I watch some more and in the a.m. I do a little searching on the interwebz.
If it's there, I am a French model, right?
------------------------
Last night I managed to catch the last 5 minutes of my favorite stooge, Rachel Maddow.
She is still reporting that an 'assault rifle' was used in the Sandy Hook shootings, contrary to popular belief.
I flipped the channel to FOX news and there was a discussion about the father of a child shot during the massacre.
Bill O'Really (My spelling) was going on about a report from Martin Bashir, an MSNBC puppet head.
MB played a tape from a hearing where the dad was supposedly heckled by 'gun nuts' at the hearing.
----------------------
The tape played, without the cute editing, was nowhere near a crowd heckling that father.
During his testimony, the gentleman challenged the people in attendance as to why they needed assault weapons and the extended magazines.
He stoppped and said there was no one "brave enough" to answer his challenge, after silence from the crowd, he repeated his challenge and a few people spoke up.
A gentleman (one of the politicos) then asked the crowd to quiet down, or the gallery would be cleared.
---------------------
The snappy editing and sloppy reporting made is sound like the GUN NUTS in the seats were acting like morons and disrespecting the man/hearings.
There is enough of a problem with idiots shooting up public areas - now we have to worry about the media making up stories, fanning the flames and never being help responsible for lying to the people who 'rely' on them for a story.
I guess it's true that 'truth be damned'?:mad::rolleyes:
I only respond to you when you are direct with me, I respect you.Quote:
Originally Posted by pomtzu
I find jokes about liberals and hard drugs funny. Cocaine=snow add in a liberal complaining, funny and I fail to find it crude. Now the urine freezing before it hits the ground, crude? Yes, still funny.Quote:
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Liz or ES, but I most definitely disagree with you and your rude and crude tactics. I suppose that your comment about "snow" wasn't rude and crude ??? - but there you go again - the pot calling the kettle black. Obviously that shoe fit you very well and you are very familiar with snow in all of it's forms.
And I still see no anger in anything I've posted. Try disgust on for size.
I lurk mostly. I dont need my ego fed by the cute things my dogs or cat do so I dont post those. I do enjoy the posts of others, I just dont feel the need to comment. I also dont have the experience to comment in the posts needing expert help.Quote:
And I'm curious, blue, so maybe you can answer this for me. This is a pet forum - right??? Well then why is it that you never (except on an extremely rare occasion), post anything about pets - be it yours or anyone else's??? You come here only to be rude and crude - abrupt and abrasive - as you choose to call it. Why don't you take your nastiness to a forum that would appreciate your m.o. - I've heard that there are plenty of them out there and I'm certain that you would be more than welcome to join many of them.
Lot of text for no anger issues with me.Quote:
Nope - still no anger on my part.
Appreciate the happy thoughts while I am under the weather.Quote:
Have a super happy day!!! :rolleyes:
To add. Im not much liked here, by you and others. Im sure if I where to start commenting in the general areas my anti fan club would start hijacking innocent threads to attack me, the Echo Chamber.
I can expound my response if the previous wasnt sufficient, Pom or sasvermont. Just let me know where I was insufficient.
There you go again - you just can't drop it. However, I'm dropping it, as it really isn't worth my time.Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
Thank you Pom for letting me know my response was sufficient.
To get back on topic....
Finally a statement of fact about the issue from Vice President Biden:
"Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down," Biden said, echoing remarks President Barack Obama made in January when he said "there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely."
That being the case, let's try just for a moment enforcing the laws currently on the books, eliminating the barriers against including psychological information in NICS checks, and move on without restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
The same could be said about traffic offenses, shoplifting, cheating on your income taxes, harrassing your next door neighbor or deciding to hold a party right in the middle
of downtown traffic.
We will never completely stop people from doing any dumb thing they think up to do, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make it unlawful. Think about it. We can't NOT ACT
just because some people will break the law anyway.
Just because the constitution allows citizens to buy a weapon doesn't mean they can purchase ANY type of weapon their little hearts desire. Would you like your neighbor to have
a cannon in his front yard? Having limits can be a good thing.
A cannon? No problem. As long as the requisite legalities are taken care of, no issues whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
The examples you list are examples of people breaking existing laws. There's no constitutional right to do any of the things listed. However, there is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, upheld by the SCOTUS as an individual right. There are already limits on that right that have been enacted in law and adjudicated as appropriate limits. There is no need for further limits, despite the fearmongering by the media. Had psychiatric conditions been a limiting reason to restrict access to firearms, most of the recent events wouldn't have occurred, however, the right to patient privacy is evidently more important than a truly effective NICS system.
http://carbide-cannons.carbidecannon.org/Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
----------------
Just had a discussion about Sandy Hook versus Aurora (versus Columbine/VA Tech and every other mass) shooting.
I guess some high school kids being shot wasn't as bad as a theater full of people, but a school full of kids gets people to 'act'?
I find it kinda strange that we refuse to put the same price on every life.
------------------
The Diane Feinstein gun act is exactly that, an act.
It's a stupid, minimalist approach (Can you say pretend) to a the existing gun laws.
I had a great laugh about DF going after a gun with a folding stock.
What?
WIH does a folding butt stock have to do with the lethality of a gun?
If you decide carry 12 ten round magazines how is that different than carrying 4 thirty round mags?
Does a foregrip on a gun make it deadlier?
You'd have to ask her, I really don't have an answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
Dear VP Biden: Have you paid any attention to what's happened in Chicago this week? A girl with a very promising future was killed when she happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you, as the head of the task force, think that nothing you might do will help -- what does that say to America? Do your best to at least try to come up with something. Meanwhile, if you could help those charged with enforcing the current laws to do their jobs better, that would be a good start. Especially here in Chicago where the people are doing the shooting are at risk of ending up dead or imprisoned. Please listen to all the pastors and mothers and other people who are saying that something must change.
I feel sorry for the mothers and families of Chicago (and everywhere) whose lives are marred by this violence. But I doubt the guns involved were purchased legally, or the perpetrators have any fear of repercussions from using them illegally. More needs to change in the culture of these neighborhoods - wherever they are - than any law will fix, no matter how far-reaching and specific. Serious, long-term work needs to be done addressing the causes of the violence, which is more to the heart of the matter than the guns by which it gets expressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by cassiesmom
I do think we also need to address the mental health aspect of this, in most "school shootings" cases that make the news, there were red flags raised about the mental health of the eventual shooter, but because of patient privacy laws, nothing was done. But targeting the weapons themselves is far simpler and politically more newsworthy than addressing that difficult, complex, legally and ethically difficult issue of mental health.
CM, if the inanimate objects were the heart of the problem, then there would be far more violent deaths in, for instance, rural areas of upstate New York than there are in Chicago, as firearms are far more prevalent in rural areas than they are in cities.
Most people have them, no one, frankly, cares. As stated earlier in the thread they are simply a part of the landscape.
It's not the firearms, it's the people. You could address the tools all day long, but unless you do something about the root cause of the violence then nothing will change.
Assign Eric Holder to monitor the guns. They'll disappear....Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
There seems to be a lot of finger-pointing. Mayor Emanuel should do something. Or the Chicago schools should do more. Or it's up to Gov. Quinn and the legislature to make better laws. Or the police aren't doing enough. Or the problem is lack of jobs. Or the problem is drugs. Or someone needs to do something about family instability. Round and round we go. There seem to be a lot of causes but no way to hit any one of them hard enough to have a big effect on the violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
If we're gonna over simplify this, I must get this off my chest. My friend says, buy all the guns ya want. Make 'em all legal. Even automatic weapons. Just don't sell ammunition. Guns don't kill folks, bullets do.
We can always reload our own ammo. It's easily done.Quote:
Originally Posted by mon
People say enforce the laws we already have.
Just what are some of the laws already on the books, and why aren't they being enforced?
The shooter in Binghamton a few years back had a pistol permit. He got the permit because the local chief didn't want to deal with a discrimination suit. One of the references the shooter used basically told the police that they wouldn't want the person to have firearms. That is supposed to be an immediate disqualifier. It was ignored.Quote:
Originally Posted by phesina
Fund NICS. Many records aren't getting into the database because there's no funding for a complete implementation.
As much as I hate the Lautenberg act, if you're going to have it on the books, enforce it. Every soldier has to undergo a complete legal check for suitability to carry firearms. Because of funding, many civilians slip through the cracks (If you have a domestic violence conviction of any kind or a restraining order, you're not supposed to have access to firearms)
Eliminate the doublespeak. Even if the Federal Government passes a NICS check including mental health, Massachusetts, for one, has laws on the books barring ANY mental health records screenings. The state injunction against it is far stronger than the federal laws, yet Massachusetts has one of the strongest AWB in the country in place.
There are over 22,000 laws on the books governing firearms between federal and state legislation, including restrictions against those with mental illness acquiring weapons. There is, however, no mandated mental health records check. There are laws barring those who have committed felonies and some misdemeanors from acquiring firearms, but the records check system is underfunded at the Federal level and not funded at all in some states (looking at you, Missouri). Before passing more laws, rationalize and enforce the ones we've got.
White House Recipe for Skeet.
Serves 4
Take four skeet - if you go skeet shooting you must follow a few simple steps.
Boil two gallons of water and place the skeet in for approximately 60 seconds, this will allow you to
take the feathers off the birds.
Gut the birds and remove the head and feet - you can keep them for stock.
------------------
Take a pair of kitchen shears and cut the breastbone, then lay flat.
-----------------
Take half a cup of soy sauce, 1/2 teaspoon of ginger, 1/2 teaspoon of salt and pepper, Mix thoroughly.
Place the skeet in a plastic bag and pour the marinade in.
Place into the fridge for 2-3 hours.
------------------
To cook your skeet, you can bake or grill. When temperature - taken from the thigh - reaches 170 degrees the skeet are ready.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RICHARD
I didn't know that clay pigeons had feathers, nor did I realize that they are edible. :eek::D
Looks similar to the recipe for crow they use on Capitol Hill.
Wait a minute, so what was the presidentshooting at?;)Quote:
Originally Posted by pomtzu
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/04/politi...html?hpt=hp_c2
To back up President Barack Obama's statement that he goes skeet shooting regularly, which some Republicans questioned, the White House released this photo of Obama firing a rifle at Camp David in August. See more commanders in chief taking advantage of their right to bear arms.
Guys, if that's a rifle, then I'm Japanese.
You mean any long gun isn't a rifle, and any gun with a clip isn't an assault rifle? Gee, you mean types of guns have actual names that have meaning?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
Maybe someone should take out a full-page ad in some national venue explain the difference between a shot gun, a rifle, a pistol, a revolver, and all the way down the line! It would have to have pictures as well as words, though ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karen
A shot guns shoots 'shot' - or little pellets of different sizes. They also can shoot slugs or flechettes. Slugs are just like bullets, large hunks of lead. Flechettes are small darts.
When the shot or flechettes leave the barrel they are concentrated - as the go down range they spread out and make it easier to hit what you shoot at.
A shotgun slug is like a large bullet, it's used for large animal hunting.
A shotgun is 'loaded' by moving the foregrip back and forth. There are some old shot guns that use a bolt action method of getting a shell into the breech to shoot.
A bolt action gun is primed by grabbing a lever and moving it backwards to eject the old shell and place a new shell into position.
-------------------------------------------
A rifle is named for the spirals cut into the barrel.
As the bullet leaves the barrel the rifling spins the bullet making it fly straighter - it's a long range weapon.
----------------------------
A revolver is a gun - like a six shooter - that the Cowboys used to use.
It's named for the cylinder that revolves to put a bullet into position to fire.
It doesn't eject empty cartridges.
A pistol, is a magazine fed gun that does eject spent shells, the magazine goes into the grip of the gun.
A magaine is usually a 'box' with a spring at the bottom that feeds the rounds into the chamber to be fired.
-----------------------
More often than not, the politicos talking about GC don't have a clue as to what they are talking about.
-----------------
if I made a mistake somewhere, someone will correct me!
Richard, I know all that - I meant for the world's media to see and be quizzed on, so they don't make mistakes like calling the shotgun the president is holding a rifle!
One does not grow up in a family with a grandfather who was chief of police (retired) and a Dad who did Small Arms Repair in the Army without knowing about guns, the different kinds, weights, purposes and ammunition. And to never kid around with them, and other rules that were drilled into us before we were ever allowed to touch any!
In my best Emily Litella voice......Never mind!Quote:
Originally Posted by Karen
" A magaine is usually a 'box' with a spring at the bottom that feeds the rounds into the chamber to be fired."
I thought a"magaine" was a very very bad headache.:D:D J/k
It is, if you get pistol whipped?:eek:;)Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud