Mock

(10-09-2015, 10:56 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]What Presidential candidate Martin O'Malley is proposing is that those weapons listed above, along with semi-automatics, become banned altogether. That's my understanding.

And, all other guns would be part of a newly-established national gun registry.

Under his plan, if you want to own guns, you must register them with the Fed.

I just caught the semi-auto part of this. Yeah, that will never fly. Its just waaaaaaaay to broad.

(10-09-2015, 10:43 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]Maggot = Consumate bullshit-peddler.

A nice ring to it.

There's not one person here clamoring to take your precious guns.

My god, you want to go out to your local dump and shoot beer cans until darkness falls, be my guest.

None of you gun aficionados even acknowledge that there are too many guns and they're too easy for the wrong (see: mentally unhinged) people to get.

I'm more concerned with victims of gun violence than I am with your 'inalienable right' to own as many fucking guns as you want.

You guys sound like you're looney tunes, spewing the same old horse-shit rhetoric day after day.

That's the problem with you anti-gun folks. You fail to understand that taking away the 2^nd opens Pandoras box. Never mind the fact that a descent law hasn't been written yet and making a law and taking away someone's rights is an incredibly big deal. Let's just outlaw it. Like Pelosi said... Let's just sign it and figure out what it all means later. Brilliant.

(10-09-2015, 11:14 AM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]Just wondering what everyone thinks a gun registry would accomplish?

I'd guess one of the goals would be to help law enforcement better enforce existing and new gun laws.

If a gun is used in a crime and the federal registry shows the registered own hasn't reported it stolen prior to the crime, for example, that could possibly help the investigation move forward more quickly. In addition, it could give LE/prosecutors more opportunity to hold accountable irresponsible gun owners, even if they didn't commit the gun crime that kicked-off the investigation. Control / Public Safety.

Also, it might serve as a deterrent to gun violence if the gun owner knows that he/she would be directly associated with a discarded or hidden/transferred weapon within minutes.

And, let's say "safe technology" becomes a mandate for all guns. A federal registry could be where technology upgrades for old guns are recorded and tracked to ensure compliance.

If you fear the government, you could argue that a federal gun registry would also give the government ready access to who owns what guns in order to more quickly confiscate all of them.

I'm just thinking out loud in response to your question.

I don't think the law prohibiting the government from establishing a federal gun registry will be repealed.

(10-09-2015, 11:35 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2015, 11:14 AM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]Just wondering what everyone thinks a gun registry would accomplish?

I'd guess one of the goals would be to help law enforcement better enforce existing and new gun laws.

If a gun is used in a crime and the federal registry shows the registered own hasn't reported it stolen prior to the crime, for example, that could possibly help the investigation move forward more quickly. In addition, it could give LE/prosecutors more opportunity to hold accountable irresponsible gun owners, even if they didn't commit the gun crime that kicked-off the investigation. Control / Public Safety.

Also, it might serve as a deterrent to gun violence if the gun owner knows that he/she would be directly associated with a discarded or hidden/transferred weapon within minutes.

And, let's say "safe technology" becomes a mandate for all guns. A federal registry could be where technology upgrades for old guns are recorded and tracked to ensure compliance.

If you fear the government, you could argue that a federal gun registry would also give the government ready access to who owns what guns in order to more quickly confiscate all of them.

I'm just thinking out loud in response to your question.

I don't think the law prohibiting the government from establishing a federal gun registry will be repealed.

All good points and gives me food for thought.

Only problem is history shows us that registration leads to confiscation elsewhere in the world. Yes I know, broken record, but holds true.

I am willing to bet that if a registry is enacted a good number of firearms that are already owned will not be registered. Then you throw in the fact that it is perfectly legal to build your own firearms and no SER #'s are required and you have another batch of guns that wont get registered.

Even if , lets just use me for example, I registered my AR-15 or AK47 that wont stop me from building a new receiver and replacing the registered one. Then it could no longer be traced back to me.

Sure, nothing is perfect and some people with the will and know-how to get around any law can do so.

But, there are a lot of spontaneous, stupid and lazy violent criminals out there who lack that will and know-how.

The more of them off the streets, the better.

But, again, I don't think O'Malley or anyone else has a chance of getting the law prohibiting a federal gun registry repealed anyway (at least not in the foreseeable future). That's my opinion.

(10-09-2015, 10:43 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]Maggot = Consumate bullshit-peddler.

A nice ring to it.

There's not one person here clamoring to take your precious guns.

My god, you want to go out to your local dump and shoot beer cans until darkness falls, be my guest.

None of you gun aficionados even acknowledge that there are too many guns and they're too easy for the wrong (see: mentally unhinged) people to get.

I'm more concerned with victims of gun violence than I am with your 'inalienable right' to own as many fucking guns as you want.

You guys sound like you're looney tunes, spewing the same old horse-shit rhetoric day after day.

I am stunned I tell ya..........Stunned!

MS, not all shooting is can dancing or paper punching. Some of us do shoot competition when we have time. I train because I shoot in matches kinda like this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5bFW0cNuyw

Good Guys With and Without Guns

The carry laws in Oregon are a bit confusing. Campuses aren't exactly gun-free zones by law. Some schools have policies that make guns in classrooms prohibited.

But, they can still be carried on other parts of campus, is my understanding. And, some gun enthusiasts in the state carry concealed guns in class despite the school policy because they say state law gives them the right.

So, it's kind of interesting what went down during the mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon last week.


^ Chris Mintz, 30, is a student at the college. Mintz, an Army veteran, tried to block the door and stop the gunman. He was unarmed and was shot in the back, stomach, hands and legs - 7 times.

Mintz is recovering and being hailed a hero. A GoFundMe page established by a family member has raised over $800k. Source: https://www.gofundme.com/s75ge9y4


Meanwhile, ^ John Parker, also a military veteran and student at Umpqua Community College, was on campus when the shootings began. He and his friends were carrying concealed weapons and decided not to intervene.

Parker told reporters that he does indeed carry a handgun in case “I’m in close proximity” to an incident where he can legitimately help another person, but he was also quick to say that he is not the kind of person who believes that “there’s always somebody out there behind your back ready to do something like this.”

Even though he and other armed students had both the training and the firepower to rush into the scene and confront, Parker told MSNBC:

“Luckily we made the choice not to get involved. We were quite a distance away from the building where this was happening. And we could have opened ourselves up to be potential targets ourselves, and not knowing where SWAT was, their response time, they wouldn’t know who we were. And if we had our guns ready to shoot, they could think that we were bad guys.” Source: http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/umpqua...7437763914

I was just at my kids' elementary school for my daughter's birthday party.

Since Sandy Hook I can't help but think about the school from a maniac's viewpoint, ie, how would he get in, where would he go first, etc.

The main doors are locked, but since they're glass, I believe you could just shoot one out and now he's in the main foyer. The first rooms are maybe 20-30 yards away down two different hallways.

I gotta tell you, I would not be opposed to say, the principal, and maybe one other person, being armed in a school setting.

I know that brings guns into the school, but I like the idea of someone having a chance to fight back.

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson (above right) has been taking heat for advising the public that people caught in mass shootings, like the Umpqua College students, should not obey and instead rush the gunman in attempt to overpower him, like he would have done. Carson also told reporters that guns might have stopped the Holocaust.

In response to Carson's comments, fellow Republican presidential candidate Lindsey Graham (above left) essentially responded that Carson is talking out of his black ass (my paraphrase).

Ref: http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/arti...r-scrutiny

(10-09-2015, 01:28 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]I was just at my kids' elementary school for my daughter's birthday party.

Since Sandy Hook I can't help but think about the school from a maniac's viewpoint, ie, how would he get in, where would he go first, etc.

The main doors are locked, but since they're glass, I believe you could just shoot one out and now he's in the main foyer. The first rooms are maybe 20-30 yards away down two different hallways.

I gotta tell you, I would not be opposed to say, the principal, and maybe one other person, being armed in a school setting.

I know that brings guns into the school, but I like the idea of someone having a chance to fight back.

What about the idea of 1 or 2 off duty or retired military or law enforcement being stationed at schools?




ETA. I look at schools and every other building the same way MS. I never eat at a restaurant where I cant sit in view of the door either.

MS just needs to have another pumpkin spice latte and chill.

Yeah, I like the idea of LE being around schools, even if it's for short periods of time, as a deterrent. Stagger the times throughout the week so nothing is predictable.

I think costs would get too high to station LE at a school, however, if it saves lives in the end it was worth it.

(10-09-2015, 11:14 AM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]Just wondering what everyone thinks a gun registry would accomplish?

I think some states have laws that violent felons cannot live in a household with any guns. The same should be for the mentally ill or anyone who has been admitted to a mental health facility for any reason. If guns were registered it would make easier to ensure these people aren't being released to households that have an arsenal at their reach.

I don't really have any strong opinions on it either way, I'm in the middle on the gun debate. I think a more important first step should be to have armed security at the schools and making it harder to get in.

(10-09-2015, 01:56 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, I like the idea of LE being around schools, even if it's for short periods of time, as a deterrent. Stagger the times throughout the week so nothing is predictable.

I think costs would get too high to station LE at a school, however, if it saves lives in the end it was worth it.

Most schools already have a school safety/truancy officer(s) who are actual police. It wouldn't cost much to have them trained to carry a firearm and station them at entry points along with metal detectors. Nobody enters the school with a gun.

(10-09-2015, 11:33 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2015, 10:43 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]Maggot = Consumate bullshit-peddler.

A nice ring to it.

There's not one person here clamoring to take your precious guns.

My god, you want to go out to your local dump and shoot beer cans until darkness falls, be my guest.

None of you gun aficionados even acknowledge that there are too many guns and they're too easy for the wrong (see: mentally unhinged) people to get.

I'm more concerned with victims of gun violence than I am with your 'inalienable right' to own as many fucking guns as you want.

You guys sound like you're looney tunes, spewing the same old horse-shit rhetoric day after day.

That's the problem with you anti-gun folks. You fail to understand that taking away the 2^nd opens Pandoras box.

I don't think anyone is suggesting "taking away the 2^nd" in its entirety and the Pandora's box is just another term for a slippery slope that may not exist at all. It's the same argument that people use for limiting late term abortions...if ANY limitations are put in to place, the argument is made that it's just a matter of time before women lose all their rights to choose. I call bullshit.

As far as gun laws in different states/cities (someone cited Chicago), with our open borders between states, they're a joke. There's no way, absent national gun laws, to think that individual state laws are going to be effective. It's been shown that people who live in areas with strict gun control laws just travel to other locations to purchase the weapons that they want--with ease.

(10-09-2015, 02:33 PM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2015, 11:14 AM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]Just wondering what everyone thinks a gun registry would accomplish?

I think some states have laws that violent felons cannot live in a household with any guns. The same should be for the mentally ill or anyone who has been admitted to a mental health facility for any reason. If guns were registered it would make easier to ensure these people aren't being released to households that have an arsenal at their reach.

I don't really have any strong opinions on it either way, I'm in the middle on the gun debate. I think a more important first step should be to have armed security at the schools and making it harder to get in.

That is discrimination and the "for any reason" statement could come down to an officers opinion that a perfectly sane person needs to be observed for 24 hours. That happens a lot actually.

(10-09-2015, 01:56 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, I like the idea of LE being around schools, even if it's for short periods of time, as a deterrent. Stagger the times throughout the week so nothing is predictable.

I think costs would get too high to station LE at a school, however, if it saves lives in the end it was worth it.

I would think there would be many retired LEO and Mill that would volunteer to do that for free. I may be wrong.

(10-09-2015, 02:33 PM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2015, 11:14 AM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]Just wondering what everyone thinks a gun registry would accomplish?

I think some states have laws that violent felons cannot live in a household with any guns. The same should be for the mentally ill or anyone who has been admitted to a mental health facility for any reason. If guns were registered it would make easier to ensure these people aren't being released to households that have an arsenal at their reach.

I don't really have any strong opinions on it either way, I'm in the middle on the gun debate. I think a more important first step should be to have armed security at the schools and making it harder to get in.

Actually a felon can be in a home with a firearm in it. They cannot have access to it however. That is a federal law. I know this because a brother did 3 years for being a felon in position of a firearm. When he got out and was on parole any place he went to had to be inspected before he could go there. Well as you would guess my home got inspected. I had about 150 guns at the time and enough ammo to fill the bed of a pickup. The inspector seen that, seen it was in a locked room and said it was cool. As long as my friend was unable to access that room he could be there. A couple years after he got off paper he was actually able to own and hunt with black powder firearms. So I bought him a nice inline muzzleloader and he started deer hunting again.

(10-09-2015, 02:48 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2015, 11:33 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2015, 10:43 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]Maggot = Consumate bullshit-peddler.

A nice ring to it.

There's not one person here clamoring to take your precious guns.

My god, you want to go out to your local dump and shoot beer cans until darkness falls, be my guest.

None of you gun aficionados even acknowledge that there are too many guns and they're too easy for the wrong (see: mentally unhinged) people to get.

I'm more concerned with victims of gun violence than I am with your 'inalienable right' to own as many fucking guns as you want.

You guys sound like you're looney tunes, spewing the same old horse-shit rhetoric day after day.

That's the problem with you anti-gun folks. You fail to understand that taking away the 2^nd opens Pandoras box.

I don't think anyone is suggesting "taking away the 2^nd" in its entirety and the Pandora's box is just another term for a slippery slope that may not exist at all. It's the same argument that people use for limiting late term abortions...if ANY limitations are put in to place, the argument is made that it's just a matter of time before women lose all their rights to choose. I call bullshit.

As far as gun laws in different states/cities (someone cited Chicago), with our open borders between states, they're a joke. There's no way, absent national gun laws, to think that individual state laws are going to be effective. It's been shown that people who live in areas with strict gun control laws just travel to other locations to purchase the weapons that they want--with ease.

Pandora's box is not another term for slippery slope ya dope How much privacy did you lose for the Patriot act MS? Call BS all you want, but the NSA has WAY more info on you and your family then they ever needed. While the Patriot Act was an act of congress, it still infringed on your right to privacy and is a good example of what happens when we hurry up and sign something into law without taking into account the effects it may have down stream.