Like Tree279Likes

Thread: 18 Children Dead in CT Mass Shooting

  1. #351
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,630

    Default

    I do not own any guns, however, many of my wife's family and many of my friends own multiple weapons including semi-automatic weapons.

    Owning guns is a right garunteed by our Constitution. It's really that simple.

    And that should be the end of the discussion.
    SPFDRum, FyredUp and Chenzo like this.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  2. #352
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Nothing stops a person from strapping a dozen handguns to themselves. However, they run out of bullets after 10 rounds and have to stop to find their next weapon (or change magazines). That takes time. Maybe seconds. But those seconds are time potential victims can use to either counter the assailant or run away. You say that is meaningless. I've cited examples where that time lag was used to great effect in stopping the gunman. IMO, that is not meaningless.
    Your scenario is ludicrous if you are saying it would have made a difference at Sandy Hook. Who would jump the gunman? Elelmentary school children? Female teachers who were far more concerned with protecting their students? Who? You see you continue with these ridiculous justifications for banning gun related items with these idiotic premises.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  3. #353
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I've repeatedly pointed out the different reactions between the Sandy Hook and Trayvon Martin case on more than one occasion. After one incident where an unarmed individual was killed by an armed individual there was no support for arming the unarmed the individual. In another incident that solution was put forth repeatedly.

    Off topic and irrelevant to the Sandy hook incident being discussed here. Nice try, no points will be awarded.


    We do know that Zimmerman continued to seek out Martin. That much is sure based upon the evidence put forth in the complaint that charged him. The legality of Zimmerman's gun ownership is not relevant.

    See above.


    Disagree. Zimmerman desired a confrontation when he ignored the dispatcher's request to stop following Martin.

    See above.


    Please point me to where I've stated that private ownership of firearms should not be allowed. The only regulatory changes I've suggested are the elimination of the secondary market (aka gun shows) and limiting magazine capacity. Yet you have made the superman's leap into believing I "completely" anti-gun.

    Why eliminate gun shows? I have already stted that the shotgun I purchased was done in accordance with all state and federal laws and a back ground check and paperwork were done.
    The Travon Martin incident AND gun shows have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Sandy Hook incident. By continually diverting off into other areas YOU LOOK like an anti-gunner stretching for more reasons to ban guns. If you are pro-gun please stop because you aren't doing a damn thng to show it.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  4. #354
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I do not own any guns, however, many of my wife's family and many of my friends own multiple weapons including semi-automatic weapons.

    Owning guns is a right garunteed by our Constitution. It's really that simple.

    And that should be the end of the discussion.
    The only thing I would add to this EXCELLENT post is that many of the founding fathers openly advocated IN WRITING for private citizen's rights to own firearms. In fact it was so important to them that they made it sound like an obligation.
    Chenzo likes this.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  5. #355
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Your scenario is ludicrous if you are saying it would have made a difference at Sandy Hook. Who would jump the gunman? Elelmentary school children? Female teachers who were far more concerned with protecting their students? Who? You see you continue with these ridiculous justifications for banning gun related items with these idiotic premises.
    Might as well be talking to LA about firefighting.....

  6. #356
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsb View Post
    Might as well be talking to LA about firefighting.....
    Now that is funny ****e right there!!
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  7. #357
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I do not own any guns, however, many of my wife's family and many of my friends own multiple weapons including semi-automatic weapons.

    Owning guns is a right garunteed by our Constitution. It's really that simple.

    And that should be the end of the discussion.
    So ex-cons, mentally ill, etc should all be allowed guns....after all, they have rights under the Constitution as well.

    Or do you support some restrictions on that right?

    A restriction on who gets the right is not much different than a restriction on what guns are allowed to be owned.

    So it's really NOT that simple.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  8. #358
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    ...
    Again, my point is I did everything according to the law and you still aren't happy...
    Actually, I'm very happy you and the dealer did everything according to the law. I'm not overly thrilled that the law is so lax though.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  9. #359
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Actually, I'm very happy you and the dealer did everything according to the law. I'm not overly thrilled that the law is so lax though.
    I'm not happy about a lot of lax laws either. A particular pet peeve of mine is the ridiculously loud pipes allowed on motorcycles. Another is the hypocrisy that says while inside my pick up truck i have to wear a seatbelt while some chucklehead on that same loud piped motorcycle doesn't have to wear any safety equipment at all except eye protection. Hell, they can wear flip flops while riding. But they are in compliance with the law...no matter how much I disagree with it.

    My point, who cares if you aren't overy thrilled with the law? If I am in complance with the law that is ALL that matters to me regarding purchasing and owning firearms.

    By the way, I AM a law abiding citizen and I find your and others attempts to usurp MY rights in yet another ridiculous attempt, that will fail miserably yet again, to do something about criminals and the mentally ill, totally un-American..
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  10. #360
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,686

    Default

    Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy



    Interesting technology. Ability to turn anyone into a "sniper".
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  11. #361
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    ...My point, who cares if you aren't overy thrilled with the law?...
    Apparently, you care very much. This is the 2nd or 3rd post where you have told me you don't care....
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  12. #362
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Apparently, you care very much. This is the 2nd or 3rd post where you have told me you don't care....
    And multiple posts by you stating that even though I followed the "Letter of the Law" that is apparently more stringent than in your state it isn't enough for you. Maybe you should worry about fixing YOUR state since it seems they are far more lax about the law than mine is.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 01-10-2013 at 10:28 PM.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  13. #363
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post

    Interesting technology. Ability to turn anyone into a "sniper".
    Relevance to this topic? Oh yeah, NONE.

    The mass shooting at Sandy Hook was done essentially at point blank ranges. Not precision shooting done from 673 yards away. Further this futuristic sighting sytem was listed at roughy $17K. yeah, I see your average looney toon buying that for a shooting spree.

    Topic...try to stay on it. Diversion is a sign of weakness in a discussion/debate.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 01-11-2013 at 10:34 AM.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  14. #364
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    So ex-cons, mentally ill, etc should all be allowed guns....after all, they have rights under the Constitution as well.

    Or do you support some restrictions on that right?

    A restriction on who gets the right is not much different than a restriction on what guns are allowed to be owned.

    So it's really NOT that simple.
    Yes, there should be some restrictions.

    Convicted of a violent felony. No Guns.

    But how do you wish to define mentally ill? The kid who just happens to be a loner or the guy depressed over the breakup with the wife or he just lost his job? To me it seems like a very slippery slope where the guy or gal that could "possibly pose a threat" in some psychologist's, or worse yet, some high school consueler's mind but really isn't, could be defined as "mentally ill" and denied their constitutional right of gun ownership because of a "diagonosis", right or wrong.

    The fact is it is an American's right per our Constitution to own guns without submitting their financial records and life history to be evaluated if they are "stable enough" to own weapons. Sorry, but I just don't buy that and never will.

    Some very baseline restrictions yes, but we are never going to prevent everybody from acquiring weapons and then using them to kill folks. It happens, and always will. Denying a constitutional right en mass just to prevent a few incidents isn't right, and more importantly, isn't constitutional.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 01-11-2013 at 08:42 AM.
    FyredUp likes this.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  15. #365
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Yes, there should be some restrictions.

    Convicted of a violent felony. No Guns.

    But how do you wish to define mentally ill? The kid who just happens to be a loner or the guy depressed over the breakup with the wife or he just lost his job? To me it seems like a very slippery slope where the guy or gal that could "possibly pose a threat" in some psychologist, or worse yet, some high school consueler's mind but really isn't, could be defined their constitutional right of gun ownership because of their perceptions, right or wrong.

    The fact is it is an American's right per our Constitution to own guns without submitting their financial records and life history to be evaluated if they are "stable enough" to own weapons. Sorry, but I just don't buy that and never will.

    Some very baseline restrictions yes, but we are never going to prevent everybody from acquiring weapons and then using them to kill folks. It happens, and always will. Denying a constitutional right en mass just to prevent a few incidents isn't right, and more importantly, isn't constitutional.
    Jesus H. Christ... Mark the record books, I agree with LA.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  16. #366
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Interesting article from Pravda. I'm just sharing it, not arguing any point. Please don't shoot the messenger.

    http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/col...ricans_guns-0/

  17. #367
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I do not own any guns, however, many of my wife's family and many of my friends own multiple weapons including semi-automatic weapons.

    Owning guns is a right garunteed by our Constitution. It's really that simple.

    And that should be the end of the discussion.
    True. The right is guaranteed by the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly the right (like the other Bill of Rights) is not an absolute. An example being that individual ownership of explosives (ie rocket launchers) are not allowed. There have been several laws passed that restrict the types of firearms one is allowed to own legally and they have withstood any legal challenges.

    Once again you prove your stupidity on yet another issue.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-11-2013 at 01:54 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  18. #368
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    And you have yet to make a point.
    Watch. I'm going to make several. Try to follow along.

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    Zimmerman: Who is to say that he confronted Martin? Maybe he was ambushed at his car when he was trying to leave? You have any proof to the contrary?
    Except he was told to not follow Martin and he did. He stopped and exited his vehicle. So we know that isn't the case. There has been zero proof put forth that Martin was engaged in anything illegal.

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    As far as a knife, you must be Joe Ninja. If defending yourself from a knife attack was so easy, I guess it wouldn't be the number one murder weapon.
    The best defense is to not get stabbed at all. I at least have the opportunity to run away from someone trying to stab me. That reaction may or not work with someone shooting at me. I have to rely on their being a bad shot and hope they run out of bullets before they hit me. With 30 rounds they get to make a lot of mistakes and can still be successful.

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    Very valid comparison: Even more valid by your points; yes I am not able to drive a formula 1 car on the interstate, nor am I allowed to own a machine gun. You said it would be like erasing all DUI laws, my posts have been to enforce the current laws in place, even expanding them to include mental health.
    How would you ensure that firearms owners are mentally competent? Would you require a psych exam prior to purchase like the Israelis? Would you require follow-up exams to continue ownership?

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    As far as bad guys with guns confronting good guys with guns, if that's bad, why is it so successful?
    I never said that was a bad thing. In the Zimmerman/Martin case it has yet to be determined who was the good guy and who was the bad guy. What we do know is that armed person shot an unarmed person and no one has yet to say that arming Martin would have avoided this tragedy.

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    Even you can't be so naive to see that increased gun restrictions or bans are that successful. If that where the case, New York and Chicago would be gun crime free. That's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to crime statistics and gun ownership.
    I've covered this topic numerous times. Research by those cities has shown that a large number of the firearms come from states that have lax gun laws that include the secondary firearms market. Something I believe should be eliminated.

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    So I ask, what is your point?
    Show me statistics that prove increased gun restrictions and/or bans have had a corresponding drop in violent crime?
    Show me statistics that in states where they have enacted conceal/carry and even those with castle doctrine have had an increase of carnage and innocent people being killed by legal gun owners.
    Show me a statistic that shows and increase in violent crime in states that have adopted conceal/carry and even castle doctrine.
    I can show you statistics in other nations that allow private possession of firearms that have a far lower incidence of homicide by firearms. I have stated prior to this that surely there is something we can learn from them to address the situation here.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-11-2013 at 01:56 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  19. #369
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Did you say the words Zimmerman was guilty? No, you didn't say those words directly. But the following post by you leaves no doubt what you believe.
    Which is exactly what happened.


    I agree that Zimmerman overstepped his bounds by going up to Travon. Do we know whether Zimmerman or Martin initiated physical contact? NO, we don't. You assume that Zimmerman physically assaulted Martin, I assume no such thing. It is however just as plausible that Zimmerman did confront Martin and ask him what he was doing in the neighborhood. The big question is did Martin attack Zimmerman, or did Zimmerman initiate a physical confrontation? I don't know the answer to that, and neither do you. WORDS alone are no reason for a physical confrontation from either of them.
    We do know that Zimmerman confronted Martin. We also know there has been zero proof put forth that Martin was doing anything illegal.

    Again all we know for sure is Zimmerman went up to Martin. Do we know for sure what transpired up to the shooting? No we don't. if Zimmerman walked up to Martin and asked him what he was doing in the neighborhood that is not a physical confrontation. You see I will wait and ee what the court has to say instead of convicting Zimmerman before the trial.
    Again. I've never said Zimmerman was guilty of anything. What we do know is that an armed man sought out a confrontation with an unarmed man who we know was not doing anything illegal. Assuming your remarks about Zimmerman are correct, why was Martin under any obligation to respond? That act alone is a confrontation. Again for the umpteenth time. We do know there has been zero proof put forth that Martin was doing anything illegal other than walking down the street with a bag filled with an Arizona fruit drink and Skittles.

    Believe me, I have questioned Zimmerman's actions during this entire tragic event. But I am not prepared to use phrases like "gunned down" to over sensationalize this incident, or to presume anyone guilty.
    Yet that is exactly what happened to Martin.

    Actually, it IS illegal. It's called trespassing and that is against the law. As for the neighbors complaining, perhaps none of them was aware he was there. I can't help but laugh at your idiotic question "Is that illegal" even you have to know how ridiculous that question is...You have no right to be on another person's property without their permission.
    Yet there is nothing that proves Martin was doing anything illegal.

    I can tell you with 100% certainty if someone is next to my house, without my permission the police will be called, I will be armed, and that person will be questioned by me as to why they are on my property. It is MY property and NO ONE has the right to be on my property without my permission. Especially if it is after dark. I live in a VERY rural area and anyone up by my house at that time of night is not there because they are out for a moonlight stroll.
    I can tell you with 100% certainty there has been no proof that Martin was doing anything illegal. Now you are making judgements about Martin's behavior before the facts have been produced at a trial. Something you accuse me of doing with Zimmerman.

    You implied his guilt by the phrase "gunned down." More game playing by you.
    Which is exactly what happened. An unarmed man was shot to death ("gunned down" if you will) by an armed man.

    Nope, you diverted to an unrelated shooting incident that has absolutely nothing to do with your assault weapon, high capacity magaine crusade. Then to top that you played the race card. Pathetic.
    All valid points in the discussion of firearms and their use. I'm surprised you would find those points pathetic.

    Your final admission you have nothing to defend ridiculous premise after ridiculous premise after ridiculous premise....Play the race card. Excellent liberal ploy, when losing divert it into a racial issue. I haven't seen anyone anywhere turn this into a race issue but YOU. Frankly, I would like to see ALL law abiding citizens armed, no matter what their race, sex, religion or creed. To me it is an issue of law abiding citizens protecting themselves and nothing more.
    You continue to miss the point. I cited two instances where unarmed people were "gunned down" by an armed person with two completely different solutions put forth. You continue to miss the point.


    I understand though why you diverted it into a race issue though and from the Sandy Hook tragedy into a the Travon Martin issue. You couldn't support your stance otherwise so you had to divert into another contentious, unresolved issue.
    See above response. Try to read what is written, not what you believe is written.

    It is funny YOU would accuse anyone of twisting anything since you haven't been able to stay on topicor even define what yu actually are talking about since your first post. Now spinning off into a totally unrelated incident and palying the race card make you the master of the twist.

    Pathetic, absolutely pathetic.
    It's even funnier and pathetic how you have claimed I am completely anti-gun because I propose ideas that are not unique and are embraced by many gun owners. It really shows the extremeness of your position that you believe the status quo is adequate and that Americans should just accept the possibility of mass murder as the price of freedom for someone to own and operate a weapon capable of spitting out 30 rounds in less than ten seconds.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    The Travon Martin incident AND gun shows have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Sandy Hook incident. By continually diverting off into other areas YOU LOOK like an anti-gunner stretching for more reasons to ban guns. If you are pro-gun please stop because you aren't doing a damn thng to show it.
    They have much in common in that an unarmed person(s) was(were) gunned down by an armed person and the NRA had two completely different reactions to what should be done to counter an armed person shooting someone.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-11-2013 at 01:24 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  20. #370
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,868

    Default

    I guess the bigger issue here to me is that we should not be looking to regulate any inanimate objects that are currently legal because of singular or even numerous multiple incidents where the objects themselves are not found to be the cause. Given the vast numbers of legally owned firearms and even high capacity magazines, the numbers of injuries or deaths, however tragic they are, are statistically very few. We cannot take kneejerk approaches to solving problems as it generally bites us in the rear.

    There was a reason our forefathers found it necessary to write and codify the 2nd Amendment and while this may be a different time, we need to be cognizant that it was written as a right for a reason. We have shown that we must be granted some latitude from the Constitution to restricts these Rights for cause. Ie: we can and do deny felons the right to keep and bear arms, we can and do limit who can possess a machine gun (yes many of us can if we wish to pay and submit to the scrutiny), while also denying citizens the right to possess RPG's.

    While Newtown, Aurora, Columbine, and others all should force us to exam our laws and system to determine if there's a better way, no singular event should call for the immediate suspension of any right. We can improve firearms laws and we can hold people to the current laws much better, but that requires money as we need to keep more people in prison, longer.

  21. #371
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    ...
    While Newtown, Aurora, Columbine, and others all should force us to exam our laws and system to determine if there's a better way, no singular event should call for the immediate suspension of any right. We can improve firearms laws and we can hold people to the current laws much better, but that requires money as we need to keep more people in prison, longer.
    Yes, that's what most of us have been discussing. Better ways.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  22. #372
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Relevance to this topic? Oh yeah, NONE.

    The mass shooting at Sandy Hook was done essentially at point blank ranges. Not precision shooting done from 673 yards away. Further this futuristic sighting sytem was listed at roughy $17K. yeah, I see your average looney toon buying that for a shooting spree.

    Topic...try to stay on it. Diversion is a sign of weakness in a discussion/debate.


    Thank you Master Poster Moderator. I'll ignore your continuous post for post diatribe with SC as proof of your staying on topic.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  23. #373
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    And multiple posts by you stating that even though I followed the "Letter of the Law" that is apparently more stringent than in your state it isn't enough for you. Maybe you should worry about fixing YOUR state since it seems they are far more lax about the law than mine is.

    Do you know the gun laws of my state?
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  24. #374
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Yes, that's what most of us have been discussing. Better ways.
    I'm pretty certain that holding legal firearms owners responsible for their guns would be a huge start. Yep, I know this would include having to register every firearm with a legal owner, but from that we'd be able to hold someone accountable for their guns when they turn up as being used in a crime. Ensure legal reporting requirements for those guns "missing" within a short period of time and close any untraceable sales, thus ensuring every firearm found in possession is either legally possessed or the person is charged along with the owner. People would have to be far more cognizant of how their firearms were stored, who borrowed them, and who had access to them. If you have more than one instance of a firearm you own being stolen, you lose the right to posses them. The proof this type of system would work is in the statistics regarding legally owned Class III weapons: machine guns, short-barreled firearms, silencers, etc. You don't see these being misused or in crimes... I for one am far more ready to register all my firearm before I give up the right to possess certain types or parts thereof, as I've committed no crimes and don't expect ever lose this right.

  25. #375
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    True. The right is guaranteed by the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly the right (like the other Bill of Rights) is not an absolute. An example being that individual ownership of explosives (ie rocket launchers) are not allowed. There have been several laws passed that restrict the types of firearms one is allowed to own legally and they have withstood any legal challenges.

    Once again you prove your stupidity on yet another issue.
    We are not talking about rocket launchers, bazookas or machine guns, which are all weapons that were clearly designed for war and/or mass detonation. And obviously they should not be in the hands of civilians.

    However in this case we are clearly talking about semi-automatic weapons, and even some automatic weapons (with a more stringent set of requirements) that are fully applicable for the public domain. The fact is that we as Americans do have the right to own these weapons as per the Constitution.

    Sorry, but it is our right.
    Chenzo likes this.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Shooting is West Palm Beach leaves firefighter, gunman dead.
    By SouthFlaHopeful in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 05:54 AM
  2. At least 2 dead in Kansas City mall shooting
    By RspctFrmCalgary in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-30-2007, 11:06 AM
  3. India-At Least 100 children dead
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-16-2004, 05:08 AM
  4. Children that cheered dead Americans
    By Waterboy620 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-12-2003, 05:01 PM
  5. Haysville, KS - 2 children dead
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-22-2002, 03:38 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register