Talk Already Starting About Gun Control

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by theHattersfolly
 


No, I will not remove it.
I stand behind my statement.

Progressives have removed such education from schools and work to make the younger generations fearful of an inanimate object.




posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Not enough emotion surrounding this incident for it to do any good. They had their chance after Sandy Hook, but as the emotion surrounding the tragedy faded so did their support. I think by now a majority of people are aware that mental health is the real problem here and not gun control.

ETA: We also don't know the motive behind this shooting either. The one thing for sure according to the stories is that he was after TSA agents specifically and no one else. I'm thinking there is more to the story.
edit on 11/2/2013 by SpaDe_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


I absolutely agree. Twenty years ago in my community "Hunters Education" was offered in our public school system. So was "Drivers Education". Not anymore.


Now you have to seek the Hunters Education course, which I recommend any child take, hunter or not.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SpaDe_
 


I agree and would also like to add that, this location doesn't help the debate.

California has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, that, compounded by the
fact that this shooting happened at LAX only exposes the fact that gun laws are ineffective.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   
and i have already seen the call from gun nuts to fundraise as well.

the true gun nuts use the 2nd amendment as a shield. but since they claim the 2nd...they must also agree that no gun laws are constitutional. there is nothing in the constitution about keeping mentally unbalanced or violent felons from owning guns.
is there?



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by rickm
 


Being convicted of a Felony demotes a citizen to a civilian. It strips said citizen of unlimited franchise (the right to vote), along with a fairly long list of removed or modified civil liberties, depending on the crime committed. The loss of the 2nd amendment is one of many rights. Citizens have full access, civilians don't. My father lives in the US, but is a Brit. He has permanent residence. Under ITAR laws, I can own a night vision scope for night hunting pig (very popular). Since he is not a US citizen, he can get a 10 year conviction with $10,000 fine for even looking through that same scope, let alone owning one. The practicality of the law is moot, it still exists.
edit on 2-11-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Why should schools teach firearm safety? It would be just as requiring schools to teach people traffic laws... It would be better requiring people, who want to buy a firearm, to do the test showing they understand the safety, just as in driver´s licence tests. Why should a person know the rules for drivers or traffic signs, if he/she never wants to get a car... Why should anyone who does not want to buy a firearm be taught safety handling of these?

Czech is implementing such system.


Obtaining the license requires passing written and oral exam, mainly concentrated on the legislation about guns and first aid, as well as passing the shooting test. The written exam consists of 30 questions (out of 488). With score of 67 out of 79 needed for category A, 71 of 79 for category B or C, and 74 of 79 for category D or E.
The oral exam is supposed to test the person's general knowledge about guns. So called "safe handling" of the firearms has to be demonstrated to the inspector. This usually comprises safely unloading the firearm and performing a field strip. Touching the trigger, pointing in different then appointed safe direction or trying to field strip loaded gun (Dummy round is used) results in exam's fail. Applicants are usually asked to show their ability of safe manipulation on multiple firearms (pistol, bolt-action rifle and double-barreled shotgun).
The shooting test requires specific scores dependent on the category of license applied for.
For the B and C category license it is 25m on rifle target (A4 sheet sized) with 4 out of 5 rounds hitting the target sheet shooting from a rifle. .22 Long Rifle chambered rifle is used.
For the C category license, the applicant must also successfully hit the rifle target from the distance of 25m shooting from a shotgun, 3 out of 4 rounds must hit the target (at least partially).
For the E category license, the applicant must successfully hit the international pistol target 50/20 (50 cm x 50 cm) from a distance of 10m (15m for D category license) shooting from a pistol, 4 out 5 rounds must hit the sheet.
In each of the cases above, the actual score is irrelevant, only the projectiles have to hit the target sheet.
In each of the cases the applicant is allowed 3 test shots to familiarize with the particular firearm used for the test. The shotgun is an exception to this, where only one round is allowed as a test shot.
The person can obtain more or all of the categories at once. But the set of categories needs to be known before the exam and highest score needs to be met.


en.wikipedia.org...

Schools should not touch the firearm topic at all.
edit on 2-11-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-11-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Galvatron
 


and where in the constitution does it say that demotion is legal?



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by rickm
 


Ask the supreme court. The related case is Lewis v. United States in 1966. They ruled it constitutional, I wanna say 1980. is when the SC ruled on it. Whether I agree with their judgement doesn't matter, it's the law.
edit on 2-11-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-11-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-11-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   
To be fair Bashir jams a gun control segment into every episode. He's just Piers Morgan with glasses.

I saw him turn a piece on obesity related deaths into a gun control rant once.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Galvatron
 


so then it is legal to have limitations on guns

thanx for proving my point



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by rickm
 


It's also legal to restrict ones free movement around the country, their right to vote, ones right to be on a jury. Lets not even get into the stuff not guaranteed in the constitution. Do you agree with those, too?
edit on 2-11-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)


It's also not an explicit restriction on firearms. Full citizens, have access. The difference is making someone not a full citizen anymore.
edit on 2-11-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Galvatron
 


I for one think it's a load of BS, it's a caste system prettymuch.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Galvatron
 


i will wait for you to show me where in the constitution where it says anything about being able to limit someone's rights for committing a felony



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by rickm
 


You're waiting for something already answered. My feelings on the subject have little bearing on the facts of the situation.

I pointed you in the right direction. In the end it is up to neither of us. Ask the supreme court or research that case and ruling. I won't do work for you. Like I said, regardless of whether or not I agree with the ruling, it's law now.

Edit: A good example of what I'm getting at. The affordable care act. I can't find anywhere in the constitution where it says the government has the authority to coerce me to buy a product or service in any way shape or form. But we have a supreme court who somehow ruled it constitutional, after explicitly saying in no uncertain terms that the govt doesn't have that authority... odd eh?

One more edit: The constitution, as a contract by which the states are members of the union,is kind of like the rules of a board game. The rules say what you can do, not what you can't. If it doesn't say you can, then you expressly cannot. The US government has betrayed the constitution by pretty much saying "well it doesn't say we can't, so we will".
edit on 2-11-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by rickm
 


The supreme court has a whole string of crap rulings. Would be nice to get them reversed. Doubt we will see it happen in our lifetime. Judges are way too buddy buddy with the profit monster we label our justice system. Corruption is a bitch.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


If they didn't pass after Sandy Hook this isn't a concern. We can always expect this argument after a shooting, but three victims in California (with their already extreme gun laws) isn't going to spark a debate like the shooting last year.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Galvatron
 


and your post has proven limiting gun ownership is legal.

cases have stood up before the courts on who can own, what type can be owned and etc.

but the right wing is owned lock stock and barrell by the nra and other gun nut groups who will do anything to stop meaningful legislation.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   

rickm

but the right wing is owned lock stock and barrell by the nra and other gun nut groups who will do anything to stop meaningful legislation.


Define "meaningful."

FYI, plenty of left wing groups oppose a plethora of gun laws both new and old.

It's not left or right. It's tyranny or liberty. The sooner you learn that the better off you, me and everyone else will be.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


Figured there would be talk of a "gun ban" since the prices for firearms and ammo had started to go down. Seems the only way the manufacturers can keep prices high is to drum up "gun ban" scares. Buy your AR now before they're banned! Don't wait, buy now!!!! If you don't buy now, you won't be able to protect your family when the SHTF!!!!!

Panic!!!!! Buy, buy, buy before it's too late!!!! DON'T FORGET THE AMMO!!!! Pay more for Zombie loads cause that could happen...maybe...sort of...

This also means people will continue to hoard ammo so they can eventually make a buck off some poor schmuck down the road.





top topics
 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join