The Reality of Gun Control

a reply to: Indigo5

I agree: as long as lobbies are allowed, all lobbies are allowed. You seem to want the NRA and GAO to disappear, however. Or am I misreading your posts?

The framework we operate under is not negotiable unless the legal steps are taken to change it. We are speaking of the United States of America. The framework is the Constitution and laws of the United States of America. Feel free to act to change those if you do not like the framework. There is even a process for amending the Constitution.

Now as to magazine capacity... Considering that the Orlando shooter did not use a weapon that required magazines, I fail to see where you get this. If we are looking to prevent another such tragedy, the reasonable response is to at least pass legislation that could have prevented this act. To attempt to push legislation that is not related to the act is a thinly veiled attempt at pushing a personal agenda.

As to due process: that is determined by a COURT, not by an investigator. It does not matter what the investigator says; what can the investigator PROVE in COURT to a JUDGE (or JURY)? If there is sufficient evidence for a case, make a formal charge. Take that formal charge to a judge for determination of whether or not there is sufficient cause to suspend a suspect's rights until a trial has completed and their guilt or innocence is known.

Allowing an investigator to make such a decision outside a courtroom is NOT due process.

Might I recommend a few hours of study into legal issues?

TheRedneck

Guns don't kill people.

Dangerous people with easy access to guns kill people.


...


Pills don't cause overdose suicides.

Depressed people with easy access to dangerous medications cause suicides.

Amirite? Hello?

a reply to: Indigo5

Not at all? Strange claim on my position. The NRA is free to lobby on behalves of themselves or citizens. But American citizens are free to directly lobby their politicians as well. We will see what the outcome is.

Our politicians listen so poorly to my little faint voice that I feel it more prudent to hold my nose, pay the NRA their $25/year, and hope for the best.

The other alternative is to just sit quietly by while due process is suspended in our country in favor of a nanny state. i know 7 people on a no fly list. none of them has ever been convicted of a crime beyond traffic violations. none of them have ever been questioned for their behavior. But all 7 of them are unable to fly.

@TheRedneck

Great thread. The education factor can not be stated enough. Being raised around firearms, I've never seen them for what they exactly are. I was fortunate. Many folks have no idea what guns are capable of or their bullets ballistics or their general maintenance. Hollywood and video games would have them believe that automatic weapons are everywhere and one out of 50 rounds hits its mark. Firearm damage has been scrubbed from most media reports and thus their power is no longer respected and it's intentional uses forgotten.

Knowledge is power.
...knowing is half the battle!

originally posted by: DanteGaland
Guns don't kill people.

Dangerous people with easy access to guns kill people.


...


Pills don't cause overdose suicides.

Depressed people with easy access to dangerous medications cause suicides.

Amirite? Hello?

No. You're not right. Suicides are caused by people who are depressed. period. access to medications has nothing to do with it. And the medications don't even need to be dangerous. You just need to exceed your bodies ability to metabolize.

If you are going to draw comparisons, its best to avoid trying to compare a bumper bracket from a 78 Pinto to a dandelion.

This is why everyone needs guns. Guns protect the animals.

a reply to: havok

I always agreed with Texas law: no guns in places where alcohol is served. The danger of someone getting drunk and violent is higher than the danger of being attacked in a bar. I say that as a bartender. Bars need effective bouncers, not guns.

originally posted by: anotheramethyst
a reply to: havok

I always agreed with Texas law: no guns in places where alcohol is served. The danger of someone getting drunk and violent is higher than the danger of being attacked in a bar. I say that as a bartender. Bars need effective bouncers, not guns.

My only beef with this: i am walking down the River walk and pass through a group of tables on the sidewalk where a local bar is serving. Or, maybe im near the beach and walk in between a few tables sitting in the sand outside a tiki hut bar. If i am carrying my firearms....am i a felon?

TABC law stipulates that a bar cannot serve anywhere that is not agreed upon as their service boundary when getting their permit. So, if a table is there....its "in a bar". Even if its on the sand at the beach. Since its a bar, the 46.02/46.03 signage isn't required, and as a concealed firearm licensee, i am faced with a real pickle as I tend to spend a lot of time at the Riverwalk walking down the sidewalk.

i've posed this question to a dozen firearms instructors, and a handful of police/sheriff. The answers I get to this question are varied, which tells me that even our officers don't know what to do about it.

a reply to: Indigo5

Look up the number of children killed by these homegrown terrorists every year. Then look up the number of children killed by gang violence every year. Both of these types of killings are more adequately prevented by strengthening the social fabric of our country, alleviating poverty, and creating a society where parents can raise their own children instead of having teachers (basically strangers) raise their kids for them. If banning guns made any difference, chicago would be the safest city in the u.s.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

If seems in my case, never being a gun owner, the media isn't doing a good job explaining the current gun laws. I was under the assumption anyone can easily acquire these semi-automatic weapon and they were easily available. In that case I was ignorant of the fact.

Thanks for enlightening me instead of attacking me. Usually when someone voices an opinion about the gun laws, some gun owners just want to attack you for bringing up the issue. For many people who have never owned or handled a gun, or don't even find interest in them, it's an issue that many of us really can't relate to. I think that's why there is such a split on what needs to be done to help reduce these mass shootings.

I can't even think of killing a rabbit or a deer or any living thing for that matter.

a reply to: Indigo5

What is an FBI interview supposed to accomplish?

Either they pass the interview or they fail it. If they fail the interview it still means taking away someones constitutional rights without trial. Which puts you back in the same place, either a government branch can arbitrarily take rights away for suspicion and you subject people to this suspicion for completely legal activities or you need to make it illegal to obtain in the first place.

a reply to: neo96

Thanks for explaining that to me. I think there are a lot of people who don't own guns like me that are assuming they can easily be purchased from any gun dealer. I think the issue revolving around the gun issue stems from non-gun owners like myself not fully informed on how gun purchases are carried out.

a reply to: WeRpeons

You're not alone, and therein lies a lot of the problem. The loudest voices are not always the most accurate voices.

Please, feel free to ask anything you're not sure of. Let the education of America begin here.

TheRedneck

Are you using automatic as self-reloading or as multiple bullets from a single trigger pull?

a reply to: thov420

I'm not even a gun owner, . I never really had any interest in owning a gun. These mass shootings are becoming way to common. I don't know what the answer is. I agree, society has changed. People are much more angry today and self-absorbed. There's no more respect and consideration for other people. It seems like anything goes today.

a reply to: TheRedneck

You said something that I have been saying for years, and I thank you for it. It makes me feel somewhat validated knowing that someone else sees it too.

Guns have been around for a long time. The complete and total lack of respect for human life is relatively new.

At the beginning of this nation everyone had a gun. People had emotions, they got angry, and they had access to firearms. Yet the act of murder was rare. People had mental illness, drinking problems, all manner of issues. Yet murder just didn't happen like it does today. Life was sacred. It meant something. To take a life was a very serious thing and everyone respected that.

Today taking a life seems like a daily activity for some people. Life is meaningless. The one they have and the one they take are equally worthless to them. They simply don't care. You will never legislate that away. No sign is going to change that. You can wave signs that say "(fill in the blank) lives matter" all day long but it won't change anything. Maybe they matter to you, but those lives are meaningless to the people doing the killing.

a reply to: TheRedneck

All I can say as a british gun owner is, guns don't hurt people. People hurt people. A gun is a tool, I could probably do far more damage with a knife if I was that way inclined(which I'm not). The gun debate doesn't hold any weight, at all. A human being is needed to pull a trigger... Where they aim it is up to them.

I could grab a knife and stab forty people if I wanted to. The gun debate is ridiculous...

a reply to: TheRedneck


I SEE.

We should ban shooting games, or have a waiting list or form to fill out before they play it.

LOL


In truth I agree with you. The problem is that people are beginning to LIKE being spoon feed by the government and the people pushing the Liberal agenda. It is much easier to let them do the thinking and just parot them from your "safezone". If we really want to fix this; one of the first thing we need to do is put up cell phone jammers at EVERY school up to and including collages. Start making these kids INTERACT with other human beings and not a keyboard.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: TheRedneck
The real issue, as I see it, is how to prevent criminal use of guns while allowing non-criminal use (hunting, self-defense).

What we could do, is microchip all the guns. Then link all those microchips wirelessly to the internet.

Then populate the environment with security cameras everywhere, and link those cameras to the internet.

Then we use the massive computing power of the NSA, to watch the environment, and have an Artificial Intelligence program interpret the scenes and observe the context of the actions people are doing.

When a person tries to use a gun in a crime, the NSA computer sends a signal to the microchip in his firearm disabling the firing trigger.

When a person tries to use a gun to hunt deer in the forest, the NSA computer approves the usage, once the gun owner has the requisite "hunting license", and enables the firing trigger in the gun, so he can shoot the game.

We are moveing into a new world of "Internet of Things", or "IoT", where all these "social" problems will have "technological" solutions.

WAY to 1984 for me.

Allows government tracking and also provides an owners list, which gets into the area of personal privacy.

What woud you say to an implanted chip to monitor your blood alcohol level and location when you are issued you driver permit? Same thing, just a safty measure to make sure you don't drink and drive. If you don't want it you don't have to get a permit.

Also maybe great for hunting. But what about defense? "Wait mister murderer. I have to cal the NSA to shot you."

Also you do know that you CAN build a FULL AUTO sub-machine gun in any shop that has decent hand tools?

Then there is the issue that the 2nd Amendment was not about hunting.

Nope chips would never work.

a reply to: sirlancelot

I would go father and have a required class taught in school. Everybody keeps harping that knowledge is power.

Does anybody TRULY think that a class taught by a PROFESSIONAL, will warp some kids mind? But it might save their live sometime. We can push sex ed, gender equality, transgender and a whole lot more, but are afraid that a gun safty class would "harm" their kids?

It would not even cost the school a thing. I'm sure the police, military or even the local range owner would come in and give the class for free.

a reply to: Indigo5


So it was the NRA and the GOP that stopped the FBI from doing it's job?

I worked for the stae police. It takes about 10 seconds to pull up someones criminal recod. So why should we allow more then 3 days?

Are the GOP and the NRA in charge of the HIPAA laws also? Signed into law by Clinton. Of corse there are the other federal laws that say your health can't be used against you. Maybe the DMV should have you health records also so they can make sure there is nothing that impair you driving.