Like Tree156Likes

Thread: The Gun Control Debate.......Anybody else seeing this trend?

  1. #51
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    The vast majority of the talk I'm hearing is about banning "assault weapons", limiting the volume of purchasing, limiting magazine capacity. None of which is actually taking away anybody's "rights" because the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee unfettered access to any and all weapons, the ability to purchase weapons in bulk or frequent fashion nor the amount of rounds a magazine can hold.
    And we already have hundreds if not thousands of laws doing just that. I ask, would you feel better if the shooter broke 50 laws instead of 10?
    I'll admit that I'm not very familiar with the various gun laws, so I'm not sure what's already out there. Because of that I'm not completely sold on the need for new laws vs better or actual enforcement of existing laws vs modification and enforcement of existing laws.

    I disagree with your proposal because I think it's flawed for a couple reasons. First of all, taking anti-depressants is not specifically indicative of mental illness as they are not exclusively prescribed for depression or being "crazy".
    Exactly, so now it puts the responsibility on the person that wants to purchase a firearm and the care provider to prove that.
    I'm not sure if I'm interpretting this right, but your statement was proof of compliance with meds over a 5 year period if on anti-depressants and this reads like you are saying that the person has to also prove that they aren't taking them for depression or being "crazy". If they are not prescribed for these things, would a person still have to prove med compliance over that 5 year period?

    Second, how does one show "med compliance" over a 5 year period? Would it be by showing that you've gotten refills at the right intervals because all that shows is that you've purchased the meds. Would it be by witness verification because for most people they probably don't have anybody that has consistently witnessed them taking the meds? Would it be by blood test because that wouldn't prove compliance beyond a short period of time?
    No answer to this????

    If you ride the box, you know as well as I the number of calls we get for people acting strange, violent, or expressing suicidal tendencies, only to find out they are not taking their meds. As of now, this important piece of information is protected. Again, firearm ownership bares responsibility, it should be up to that individual to prove they are capable of such. Not punish the millions of law abiding gun owner
    I agree that there is an inherent level of responsibility that comes with ownership of firearms and that the burden of proof should rest with the person wishing to purchase one. It's pretty easy to show that you haven't been arrested or have a criminal background, that you haven't been institutionalized for mental illness. You should probably even be able to show that you aren't taking anti-depressants for treatment of "psych issues", but I see an inherent problem with being able to reasonably be able to prove med compliance unless somebody physically witnesses and documents each and every time you take the medication.

    Well, based on his performance on Meet the Press this morning, he's probably earned much of that beating.
    Other than bans and restrictions to the law abiding citizen, what did the talking heads on Meet the Press offer?
    Honestly, I don't recall if there was anything else since I wasn't paying that close of attention to the program. The thing that struck me the most was how dismissive and disingenuous he was in the discussion. For example, the moderator pressed him on the idea of limiting magazine capacity and his response was pretty much "it won't work so there's no reason to discuss it or try it".

    I don't think that's indicative of faulting the gun over the person. I think it's more indicative of sensationalized journalism.
    But as you and I are having a great debate, what is the vast majority of human sheep being exposed too? Unfortunately, sensationalized journalism.
    Right, but the problem isn't just with those advocating for gun control. Some of the "pro-gun" crowd appears to be getting fairly irrational about the issue too. It's the reason I started this thread, to see if others were seeing this same trend among their friends and co-workers and such.

    Right, that's pretty much my point. We see far more news stories involving guns than other weapons or elderly people driving into crowds. So most people would think guns are the bigger problem.

    I remember a couple years ago, the media made a big deal out of some shark attacks on the east coast as if there was suddenly an epidemic of people being attacked by sharks. The reality of the situation was that the number of shark attacks that year was "normal", but the reporting of it made it seem like a bigger deal than it was.

    I agree, to truly address this matter, EVERYTHING has to be on the table for discussion and that includes the stuff that the NRA and "pro-gun" crowd is opposed to.
    What is that stuff? Things that are already legal, or worse, things that where banned in Clinton's assault weapons ban, that provided absolutely no reduction in any crime statistic. Now in Minnesota, a conceal/carry state, once you complete the class you are able to go to the pd and get a sheet that says you have passed a background check. I believe it is good for 30 days. Go to a gun show, no paper, no purchase. Effectively closing one of the loopholes so bastardized in the press. Puts the responsibility right where it belongs, the purchaser, who must have said paperwork, and the seller that must record it prior to sale. A very easy solution to really, to an issue the media has blown completely out of proportion.
    Not that I'm trying to compare these things with this issue, but........

    slavery was once legal and then we realized that needed to change, segregation used to be legal and then we realized that needed to change,.....so maybe we're getting to that point where we think something needs to change on guns?

    I agree wholeheartedly that the media is a very big part of the problem with how they handle the reporting of these incidents. I think for the most part, they shouldn't report anything about the shooters other than basic generic information like age/sex and maybe if they had or didn't have any connection to the victims or location. They shouldn't report on the shooters "agenda" or go into the detail of how they planned or executed the attacks.

    It's essentially no different than some of the investigative reporting that the media does on something like airport security. Although there is merit to investigating something like that to assess effectiveness and vulnerability, but to openly report some of the information they do is like telling terrorists how to attack us.

    I provide a solution to the mental health issue, you provide excuses to absolve the individual of responsibility.
    I provide an example of a solution offered by the NRA, you chastise it, yet offer no other solution.
    I assume your mental health solution was the thing about anti-depressants. If so, I don't believe I offered any excuses to absolve personal responsibility, I simply pointed out some flaws with the idea as stated.

    I'm not sure what solution from the NRA you are referring to nor how I chastised it, so I can't comment regarding that at this time, but will gladly do so when I'm clear on it.

  2. #52
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    I'll admit that I'm not very familiar with the various gun laws, so I'm not sure what's already out there. Because of that I'm not completely sold on the need for new laws vs better or actual enforcement of existing laws vs modification and enforcement of existing laws.
    I'm not sure if I'm interpretting this right, but your statement was proof of compliance with meds over a 5 year period if on anti-depressants and this reads like you are saying that the person has to also prove that they aren't taking them for depression or being "crazy". If they are not prescribed for these things, would a person still have to prove med compliance over that 5 year period?
    No, as you said, there are times that these drugs are not prescribed for mental health issues. I provided a solution for that via their health care provider.
    No answer to this????
    I answered it with past medical history and used the psych run as an example.
    I agree that there is an inherent level of responsibility that comes with ownership of firearms and that the burden of proof should rest with the person wishing to purchase one. It's pretty easy to show that you haven't been arrested or have a criminal background, that you haven't been institutionalized for mental illness. You should probably even be able to show that you aren't taking anti-depressants for treatment of "psych issues", but I see an inherent problem with being able to reasonably be able to prove med compliance unless somebody physically witnesses and documents each and every time you take the medication.
    Again, past medical history would do just that. But as of now, that is HIPPA protected. My proposal eliminates that protection in regards to the background check for the purchase of a firearm.
    Honestly, I don't recall if there was anything else since I wasn't paying that close of attention to the program. The thing that struck me the most was how dismissive and disingenuous he was in the discussion. For example, the moderator pressed him on the idea of limiting magazine capacity and his response was pretty much "it won't work so there's no reason to discuss it or try it".

    Right, but the problem isn't just with those advocating for gun control. Some of the "pro-gun" crowd appears to be getting fairly irrational about the issue too. It's the reason I started this thread, to see if others were seeing this same trend among their friends and co-workers and such.
    What is irrational about their views? Would it, better yet, shouldn't it carry the same weight and emotion as if someone was proposing to infringe upon our 1st, 4th, or even 5th constitutional right?
    Not that I'm trying to compare these things with this issue, but........
    slavery was once legal and then we realized that needed to change, segregation used to be legal and then we realized that needed to change,.....so maybe we're getting to that point where we think something needs to change on guns?
    Strawman, none of these where constitutionally protected.
    I assume your mental health solution was the thing about anti-depressants. If so, I don't believe I offered any excuses to absolve personal responsibility, I simply pointed out some flaws with the idea as stated.
    The only flaw is it puts the responsibility on the individual. If these bans become law, if I have a high-capacity clip, I am now breaking the law. Yet in all the years I have owned firearms, or high-capacity clips, neither them, my firearms, or myself has broken any laws. Unfortunately, this country everybody is a victim.
    I'm not sure what solution from the NRA you are referring to nor how I chastised it, so I can't comment regarding that at this time, but will gladly do so when I'm clear on it
    He proposed an armed officer at every school. As we have armed individuals protecting our banks, our airports, or state buildings, our Hollywood celebrities, and our politicians, why wouldn't we extend the same protection to our children. As far as the rest, he was pointing out to the failed Clinton era assault weapon ban and it's associated regulations. .
    There are people that think the gun is inherently evil, yet millions of Americans enjoy their 2nd amendment rights, legally and with in the context of all laws. Yet do to sensationalism propaganda in the media, and acidamia I may add, we are all lumped together as nut jobs if you voice your support for the 2nd amendment rights.
    How loud do you think they would scream if the tide changed and now maybe our 1st and/or 4th amendment rights are deemed evil?
    Last edited by SPFDRum; 12-24-2012 at 02:51 PM.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  3. #53
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    I'll admit that I'm not very familiar with the various gun laws, so I'm not sure what's already out there. Because of that I'm not completely sold on the need for new laws vs better or actual enforcement of existing laws vs modification and enforcement of existing laws.
    I'm not sure if I'm interpretting this right, but your statement was proof of compliance with meds over a 5 year period if on anti-depressants and this reads like you are saying that the person has to also prove that they aren't taking them for depression or being "crazy". If they are not prescribed for these things, would a person still have to prove med compliance over that 5 year period?

    No, as you said, there are times that these drugs are not prescribed for mental health issues. I provided a solution for that via their health care provider.

    No answer to this????

    I answered it with past medical history and used the psych run as an example.
    Your answer didn't actually address my questions which were about how it would be proved that a person was actually taking their meds. You can't look at getting refills at the right interval because a person could easily flush their meds rather than take them. I take meds daily, but there is nobody that could actually verify that I am actually taking them since I'm the only one in the bathroom when I take them. Blood tests are an option, but even that wouldn't prove long term compliance unless a person was constantly getting them done.

    Here's another wrinkle to this. How do you identify the people taking anti-depressants to know they need to prove compliance with their meds?

    I agree that there is an inherent level of responsibility that comes with ownership of firearms and that the burden of proof should rest with the person wishing to purchase one. It's pretty easy to show that you haven't been arrested or have a criminal background, that you haven't been institutionalized for mental illness. You should probably even be able to show that you aren't taking anti-depressants for treatment of "psych issues", but I see an inherent problem with being able to reasonably be able to prove med compliance unless somebody physically witnesses and documents each and every time you take the medication.
    Again, past medical history would do just that. But as of now, that is HIPPA protected. My proposal eliminates that protection in regards to the background check for the purchase of a firearm.
    Even if PMH wasn't protected by HIPAA, it still wouldn't solve the issue of proving med compliance as I stated above.

    Honestly, I don't recall if there was anything else since I wasn't paying that close of attention to the program. The thing that struck me the most was how dismissive and disingenuous he was in the discussion. For example, the moderator pressed him on the idea of limiting magazine capacity and his response was pretty much "it won't work so there's no reason to discuss it or try it".

    Right, but the problem isn't just with those advocating for gun control. Some of the "pro-gun" crowd appears to be getting fairly irrational about the issue too. It's the reason I started this thread, to see if others were seeing this same trend among their friends and co-workers and such.
    What is irrational about their views? Would it, better yet, shouldn't it carry the same weight and emotion as if someone was proposing to infringe upon our 1st, 4th, or even 5th constitutional right?
    The extremism of a lot of what I'm seeing from them which I included in my original post.

    I would expect strong resistance to actual efforts to infringe upon them. I don't have a problem with them or anybody voicing opposition to people talking about gun restrictions. My concerns are with the way it's done and the content of their message. It isn't well thought out, informed responses defending their side of the issue. It's mainly rhetoric type stuff and IMO, some of it crosses the line into paranoia and delusion.

    Not that I'm trying to compare these things with this issue, but........
    slavery was once legal and then we realized that needed to change, segregation used to be legal and then we realized that needed to change,.....so maybe we're getting to that point where we think something needs to change on guns?
    Strawman, none of these where constitutionally protected.
    It's not a strawman argument. The point is relevant, sometimes we as a nation change our mind about things and decide things that were legal no longer should be. Like our laws, the constitution can be altered. In fact, the 2nd amendment itself was an alteration of the constitution.


    I assume your mental health solution was the thing about anti-depressants. If so, I don't believe I offered any excuses to absolve personal responsibility, I simply pointed out some flaws with the idea as stated.
    The only flaw is it puts the responsibility on the individual.
    Individual responsibility isn't the flaw. The flaw is asking the individual to prove something that they can't reasonably prove.

    If these bans become law, if I have a high-capacity clip, I am now breaking the law. Yet in all the years I have owned firearms, or high-capacity clips, neither them, my firearms, or myself has broken any laws. Unfortunately, this country everybody is a victim.
    Correct and that's part of the problem with trying to impose a ban on something that is already out there and has been for some time.

    I'm not sure what solution from the NRA you are referring to nor how I chastised it, so I can't comment regarding that at this time, but will gladly do so when I'm clear on it
    He proposed an armed officer at every school. As we have armed individuals protecting our banks, our airports, or state buildings, our Hollywood celebrities, and our politicians, why wouldn't we extend the same protection to our children. As far as the rest, he was pointing out to the failed Clinton era assault weapon ban and it's associated regulations.
    I fully support the idea of schools having an armed officer present. It's sad that we have to consider doing that, but I think it's a much better idea than arming the teachers.

    As for the last sentence, just pointing out problems and regulations is not exactly problem solving. Still not quite clear as to what I chastised.

    There are people that think the gun is inherently evil, yet millions of Americans enjoy their 2nd amendment rights, legally and with in the context of all laws. Yet do to sensationalism propaganda in the media, and acidamia I may add, we are all lumped together as nut jobs if you voice your support for the 2nd amendment rights.
    I disagree that everybody is lumped together as "nut jobs". Aside from the sensationalism, part of the problem with how the "pro-gun" crowd is viewed is how they present their position on the issue. I'm really not seeing what a reasonable person or myself would consider "good" arguments to justify some things.

    For example, "why does a person need a military style rifle?". The typical response, "because I want one" or "because the 2nd amendment says I can". There's basically no response to the "Why do you need a 30-round clip?" question.

    There's basically 2 reasons to own a firearm as a civilian outside of having to provide your own weapon as a LEO or security guard - hunting and personal/family protection. Both of which can be accomplished with hunting rifles and handguns. So, it's hard to justify access to military style weapons when there are viable alternatives for hunting and protection and the general public recognizes it. The inability of the gun lobby to do that just reinforces the belief that banning that style weapon is a reasonable action.

    How loud do you think they would scream if the tide changed and now maybe our 1st and/or 4th amendment rights are deemed evil?
    I'm sure it would be loud, but nobody has killed large groups of people with the fruits of those amendments.

  4. #54
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    I'm sure it would be loud, but nobody has killed large groups of people with the fruits of those amendments.
    I will post more, but let me leave you with this about your post: How many times have you heard or read the pen is mightier that the sword?
    So in this regard, has not the written word caused as much death and destruction as any gun? Hitler: propoganda: genocide
    slackjawedyokel likes this.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  5. #55
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Nothing more needs to be said about media bias and their view of the legal gun owner.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...ermit-holders/
    Chenzo and bcjack like this.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  6. #56
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Auckland NZ
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Firemedic thank you for your calm and reasoned attempt to debate this important issue. It seems to me there are sadly many in the US who still refuse to believe it is an issue or one worthy of debate.
    Nothing constructive come from name calling or "straw man" arguments and I am sure that your refusal to indulge in them while arguing your points will provide an example others may follow, whatever their own point of view is.
    Finally let me pass my sympathy to you as one who is likely to see those issues you are raising and others are dismissing will cause more misery and mayhem before enough Americans are affected enough to demand real change.
    Stay safe brother and thank you for your efforts. You are an inspiration to me.
    Jim Maclean
    Auckland NZ
    Jim Maclean. IACOJ NZ branch

  7. #57
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimthefireman View Post
    Firemedic thank you for your calm and reasoned attempt to debate this important issue. It seems to me there are sadly many in the US who still refuse to believe it is an issue or one worthy of debate.
    Nothing constructive come from name calling or "straw man" arguments and I am sure that your refusal to indulge in them while arguing your points will provide an example others may follow, whatever their own point of view is.
    Finally let me pass my sympathy to you as one who is likely to see those issues you are raising and others are dismissing will cause more misery and mayhem before enough Americans are affected enough to demand real change.
    Stay safe brother and thank you for your efforts. You are an inspiration to me.
    Jim Maclean
    Auckland NZ
    Well since I mentioned the strawman point, this is as much directed towards me as anyone. Before your arrogance causes you to fall off your high horse, you may wish to read all the posts on the topic. Point to a single instance that anyone, pro or con states the issue isn't worthy of debate. It gets broken down into 2 very distinct points: 1) you believe the gun is inherently evil, and in of itself, its cable of causing great harm, 2) you believe the human factor is the root of the evil. Capable of wielding any tool, including a gun to cause great harm.
    As America is a free country that enjoys more personal and civil freedoms than any other country in the world, it comes with great responsibility. Until we wake up and realize it is the individual that takes advantage of that, not inanimate objects such as a gun, they may very well continue.
    As far as increased misery and mayhem, do a little research, you may be surprised to find that states with conceal/carry laws have seen a steady drop in all forms of violent crime.
    We are fortunate as Americans, we enjoy some very important and potent Constitutional Rights, I won't apologize when those that do not enjoy such freedoms find it necessary to trample mine.
    But my opinion won't sway you, as I'm sure you don't enjoy the freedoms we do, but read this for a little history lesson: http://rense.com/general81/ligun.htm
    Chenzo and bcjack like this.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  8. #58
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,685

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    ...It gets broken down into 2 very distinct points: 1) you believe the gun is inherently evil, and in of itself, its cable of causing great harm, 2) you believe the human factor is the root of the evil...
    I would guess you would put me in group 1. And I don't believe guns are inherently evil. I do believe that guns in the hands of some people make those people capable of mass murder. 1 part of stopping that from happening is not allowing access to the gun. And yes, that is just 1 part.
    "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. #59
    Forum Member
    bcjack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    I would guess you would put me in group 1. And I don't believe guns are inherently evil. I do believe that guns in the hands of some people make those people capable of mass murder. 1 part of stopping that from happening is not allowing access to the gun. And yes, that is just 1 part.
    New gun laws of any kind will NEVER stop a human with the intent and gumption to commit mass murder. They will steal the gun(s) they want/need to do their deed.

    The way you stop it is with properly trained armed citizens.
    SPFDRum and Chenzo like this.
    everyonegoeshome.com

  10. #60
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    I would guess you would put me in group 1. And I don't believe guns are inherently evil. I do believe that guns in the hands of some people make those people capable of mass murder. 1 part of stopping that from happening is not allowing access to the gun. And yes, that is just 1 part.
    Must be 18 to purchase a shotgun or long gun.
    Must be 18 to buy ammunition for such.
    Must be 21 to purchase a handgun.
    Must be 21 to buy ammunition that fits into a hand gun.
    Must pass a background check and a 30 day waiting period to actually purchase a handgun.
    Your 1 part answer is not allowing access to the gun. I ask, pray tell, how do you plan on doing this, by telling them NOT to break the law?

    Lets be honest with ourselves, anything in the hands of some people can cause mass murder; fertilizer, airplanes, the family sedan, tainted Tylenol, even the pen of an architect. The one thing that ties it all together, the human.
    Is bcjack that far off the beaten path, the answer lies in the extremely restrictive gun control laws of lets say Chicago or Washington DC, they should be a mecca for the absence of gun violence. But statistics just don't prove that out. Even the numbers during the Clinton assault weapons ban showed an increase in violent crime.
    So with no statistical evidence in the U.S. that increased gun control or bans are effective, why is it acceptable to remove my means of defending myself or my family? Why is acceptable to make illegal some of my firearms, although neither them nor myself have ever broken any of those laws. Along with millions of others I may add?
    Could it be that some are so far out of touch with reality that there can't be evil people? Are some people so obtuse that they honestly believe that someone could obtain a gun and it is the gun that turns them into a mass murder? Until then they where sanely innocent?
    How is it there is a segment of our population that is so against personal responsibility?
    Chenzo and bcjack like this.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  11. #61
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimthefireman View Post
    Firemedic thank you for your calm and reasoned attempt to debate this important issue. It seems to me there are sadly many in the US who still refuse to believe it is an issue or one worthy of debate.
    Thanks, but I think you should've included SPFDRum as your comments apply to him too.

  12. #62
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Catlettsburg, KY
    Posts
    378

    Default

    I think this a very good discussion thread.

    There a lot of good posts and I have yet read them all but will be. I need to post before I forget to what I was going to say.

    First, I currently, recently, only have one firearm. When my daughter was born, I guess you could say i was an overprotective Dad and just the thought of a possibility that my daughter would have found my firearm and had an accident kept me from having a weapon in the home. It has happened in our area BTW. I am in the process of getting another one, not because of a threat of guns being taken away but more because of home invasions and strong arm robberies in the area.

    I think a very simple point is possibly being missed. What about our criminal punishment system? Honestly, what would have happened to the a-hole if he hadn't shot himself? He would have been found insane and put in an institution where he gets better care than some people that work hard every day.

    I do not think they are going to take any weapons away from anyone. Criminals would still get guns. Criminals will still kill people. If the crazy a** criminals cannot find a gun they will use bombs and kill many more people.

    I do however do not believe that just anyone that can pass a background check should be able to own an assault rifle or a sniper rifle. This is an extreme example, but individuals cannot purchase grenade launchers.

    Our criminal punish system needs to stop pandering to these idiots and providing them an out and make the punishments severe and harsh. Forget this sh** about being inhumane or torture or whatever excuse they have. ACLU take a flying leap off Everest! I would also make it public. Let people see what happens to you if you do something bad. I would make their lives as hard, uncomfortable and painful as I possibly could. And that goes for a wide range of horrible crimes.

    OK rant off.

    I don't think they are going to take weapons away and reducing the clip size won't do anything. Heck people can make clips.

  13. #63
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    I do however do not believe that just anyone that can pass a background check should be able to own an assault rifle or a sniper rifle.
    The can't, in order to own an "assault" rifle, you must have a Federal Firearms License. Much harder, and much more regulated than just passing a background check.
    As far as a sniper rifle, my deer hunting rifle I used for years was a Remington model 700, bolt action 30-06, the same gun used by the military's of many countries as a sniper rifle. Why, not because it is capable of unfettered mass murder, but be cause its reliable. Now if are lumping the .50 cal into this, sorry. Again, you need a FFL.
    So believe it, not just anyone that can pass a background check can own an assault rifle.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  14. #64
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    We don't need more gun control, we need a judicial system with a set of nuts.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/28...est=latestnews

    From the article: "The federal charges carry a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment, a fine of $250,000 or both."
    That's it? Lets start with it being the same as the crime the individual you provided the gun to.
    Chenzo likes this.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  15. #65
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Catlettsburg, KY
    Posts
    378

    Default

    SPFDRUM,

    From my understanding the FFL is required for any dealer, distributor, wholesaler, importer, manufacturer and other of the like not for the purchase of a assualt rifle, i.e. M16, or sniper rifle, i.e. M107. ( th eonly reason I knew that aprt was because I had a political history in college that was an avid gunsman and made weapons history a large part of his class). I think the FFL went into affect in the mid 1960's. I do not know if since then if it was expanded to include the purchase of such weapons by a retail individual, but I believe it only included the above mentioned parties. If the FFL does not include purchase for individuals then it should.

    Anyway, do I think banning these weapons will reduce anything, no i do not. I know it is enjoyable to shoot these weapons. Heck i would like to shoot them as well. I just don't think i would ever own one nor do I think just anyone should own them.

    I also had a 30-06 when I hunted. I beleive also it is one of the oldest weapons used by the US Army (1960) and I am pretty sure all firearms origins can be traced back to some military somewhere.

    But, trying to bring this back to topic, they will not come get anyone's guns. Besides, it would be a bad day for the people trying to collect them. or at least in the country it would be a very bad day. There are still families who depend on the guns to provide for their families, whether be a necessity or chosen lifestyle.

    However it does need to be brought up because if this countries law abiding citizens ignore the possibility of an all out ban and lay back then it will become harder to maintain.

  16. #66
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    The irony is the pro-gunners constantly wrap themselves in the intentions of the Founding Fathers. If they bothered to research how the Founding Fathers applied the 2nd Amendment, none in that group would get the support of the NRA. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.

    For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate.” We know from recent history how conservatives like "individual mandates." They required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent muster where their guns would be inspected and, registered (something vehemently opposed by the NRA) on public rolls. We all know how well mandatory participation would also go over conservatives as well.

    In the late 60's the Black Panthers were armed with handguns and shotguns in plain view and proceeded to enter the capitol in Sacramento, CA. The establishment (aka white folks) came unglued. There were no shots fired, no one threatened. Yet the NRA and 2nd Amendment supporters were nowhere to be found supporting the Black Panthers right to carry firearms as a Constitutional right. In fact the conservative GOP establishment of the day led by a GOP Assemblyman provoked an immediate backlash. The day of their statehouse protest, lawmakers said the incident would speed enactment of a gun-control proposal. Conservatives pledged to make the bill even tougher, and added a provision barring anyone but law enforcement from bringing a loaded firearm into the state capitol. What was the name of the Governor that signed the bill into law? Ronald Reagan, the conservatives patron saint. Given the reactions to conservatives towards Black Panthers standing outside polling places during recent election cycles I doubt the reaction to them openly carrying firearms would be any different today.

    So by all means, let's embrace the Founding Fathers and how they applied the 2nd Amendment.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  17. #67
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    The irony is the pro-gunners constantly wrap themselves in the intentions of the Founding Fathers. If they bothered to research how the Founding Fathers applied the 2nd Amendment, none in that group would get the support of the NRA. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.

    For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate.” We know from recent history how conservatives like "individual mandates." They required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent muster where their guns would be inspected and, registered (something vehemently opposed by the NRA) on public rolls. We all know how well mandatory participation would also go over conservatives as well.

    In the late 60's the Black Panthers were armed with handguns and shotguns in plain view and proceeded to enter the capitol in Sacramento, CA. The establishment (aka white folks) came unglued. There were no shots fired, no one threatened. Yet the NRA and 2nd Amendment supporters were nowhere to be found supporting the Black Panthers right to carry firearms as a Constitutional right. In fact the conservative GOP establishment of the day led by a GOP Assemblyman provoked an immediate backlash. The day of their statehouse protest, lawmakers said the incident would speed enactment of a gun-control proposal. Conservatives pledged to make the bill even tougher, and added a provision barring anyone but law enforcement from bringing a loaded firearm into the state capitol. What was the name of the Governor that signed the bill into law? Ronald Reagan, the conservatives patron saint. Given the reactions to conservatives towards Black Panthers standing outside polling places during recent election cycles I doubt the reaction to them openly carrying firearms would be any different today.

    So by all means, let's embrace the Founding Fathers and how they applied the 2nd Amendment.
    So you get beat in one thread, and run to another to try and find more friends over here, huh?

    People are just as easily going to call you on your BS over here as we did in the other thread.
    "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

  18. #68
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    My views on the 2nd amendment have been verified by 2 Supreme Court rulings in 2008 & again in 2010.
    Dist. of Columbia v. Heller
    McDonald v. Chicago
    But I guess when facts fail, let's try race baiting.
    Chenzo likes this.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  19. #69
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    So you get beat in one thread, and run to another to try and find more friends over here, huh?

    People are just as easily going to call you on your BS over here as we did in the other thread.
    Who beat me? You? FyredUp? That's a hoot. I detailed why I left that thread. Delusion being the biggest response amongst those who disagree with me.

    What BS did I cite here? How the Founding Fathers actually practiced the 2nd Amendment? How the white establishment reacted to the Black Panthers carrying firearms?

    Please be specific why that is BS. You agree the Black Panthers were exercising their rights under the law, right?
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-19-2013 at 05:56 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  20. #70
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    My views on the 2nd amendment have been verified by 2 Supreme Court rulings in 2008 & again in 2010.
    Dist. of Columbia v. Heller
    McDonald v. Chicago
    But I guess when facts fail, let's try race baiting.
    I agree with the SCOTUS decisions.

    How is detailing the reaction to the Black Panthers carrying firearms race baiting? You either believe in the 2nd Amendment or you don't. I'm only clarifying actual events that have occurred in our nation's history as it relates to laws and firearms. Can you cite a source that shows I'm wrong?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  21. #71
    Forum Member
    Miller337's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Who beat me? You? FyredUp? That's a hoot. I detailed why I left that thread. Delusion being the biggest response amongst those who disagree with me.

    What BS did I cite here? How the Founding Fathers actually practiced the 2nd Amendment? How the white establishment reacted to the Black Panthers carrying firearms?

    Please be specific why that is BS. You agree the Black Panthers were exercising their rights under the law, right?
    AWWWW MAN. We're more the tinfoil hat and alcoholic beverages crowd here. Can't we just let this thread die please. I can't speak for everyone but, for many of us this is a way to decompress after a day of the horrors of reality. That the shootings are terrible and a sensible dialogue concerning the issues which lead to them is needed I cannot disagree with. It would seem that need has already been dealt with in several other forums though. I don't wish to dissuade or annoy you, so please accept my apoligies in advance if I have, for that was not my intent. I would be willing to discuss some of the issues concerning the Second amendment and its associated societal impacts with you if wish in one of the other forums. Thank you.
    Last edited by Miller337; 01-19-2013 at 08:28 PM.

  22. #72
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    The irony is the pro-gunners constantly wrap themselves in the intentions of the Founding Fathers. If they bothered to research how the Founding Fathers applied the 2nd Amendment, none in that group would get the support of the NRA. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.

    For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate.” We know from recent history how conservatives like "individual mandates." They required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent muster where their guns would be inspected and, registered (something vehemently opposed by the NRA) on public rolls. We all know how well mandatory participation would also go over conservatives as well.

    In the late 60's the Black Panthers were armed with handguns and shotguns in plain view and proceeded to enter the capitol in Sacramento, CA. The establishment (aka white folks) came unglued. There were no shots fired, no one threatened. Yet the NRA and 2nd Amendment supporters were nowhere to be found supporting the Black Panthers right to carry firearms as a Constitutional right. In fact the conservative GOP establishment of the day led by a GOP Assemblyman provoked an immediate backlash. The day of their statehouse protest, lawmakers said the incident would speed enactment of a gun-control proposal. Conservatives pledged to make the bill even tougher, and added a provision barring anyone but law enforcement from bringing a loaded firearm into the state capitol. What was the name of the Governor that signed the bill into law? Ronald Reagan, the conservatives patron saint. Given the reactions to conservatives towards Black Panthers standing outside polling places during recent election cycles I doubt the reaction to them openly carrying firearms would be any different today.

    So by all means, let's embrace the Founding Fathers and how they applied the 2nd Amendment.
    You got your a s s handed to you over there because of your complete idiotic ramblings off topic and your inability to even correctly define the firearms you were speaking about. Your complete and abysmal lack of any knowledge of federal gun laws make you look like a complete an utter tool of the left and the anti-gun crowd.

    I started to read this post of yours because once again you choose to delve into unrelated topics in an attempt to divert from your true mssion, elimination of private ownership of firearms. the truth is you can't say you support the 2nd Ammendment and then say BUT...after that. If you say But after it you do NOT support the 2nd Ammendment.

    Name:  542014_475796749147512_367335825_n.jpg
Views: 74
Size:  43.3 KB

    You can't help yourself can you? You have to continually divert this into a racial issue. the last bastion of a liberal that knows that can't logically debate their side of the topic any further. Nice try, we all see through you.

    Name:  182148_478816668845520_908963906_n.jpg
Views: 70
Size:  40.7 KB
    SPFDRum and Chenzo like 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

  23. #73
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Who beat me? You? FyredUp? That's a hoot. I detailed why I left that thread. Delusion being the biggest response amongst those who disagree with me.

    Yes, I did. You left because you knew you were looking stupid with your idiotic arguments that were so far off topic everyone saw what you were doing. Yes, you are delusional.

    What BS did I cite here? How the Founding Fathers actually practiced the 2nd Amendment? How the white establishment reacted to the Black Panthers carrying firearms?

    We actually agree on one thing here. I have read about the episode in Sacremento and the Panthers, at that time, were 100% within their legal rights to have those guns inside the Capitol as long as they threatened no one with them.

    Please be specific why that is BS. You agree the Black Panthers were exercising their rights under the law, right?

    I do. But I also believe you don't give 2 turds about their rights. You chose to divert the topic again by making it racial. Nice try, we see right through you again.
    I am not going to allow you spread your nonsense in this topic anymore than in the other one.

    Have a nice day!
    Last edited by FyredUp; 01-19-2013 at 10:34 PM.
    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

  24. #74
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I agree with the SCOTUS decisions.

    How is detailing the reaction to the Black Panthers carrying firearms race baiting? You either believe in the 2nd Amendment or you don't. I'm only clarifying actual events that have occurred in our nation's history as it relates to laws and firearms. Can you cite a source that shows I'm wrong?
    It's race baiting because you don't give a damn about the Black Panthers and you know 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

  25. #75
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    The irony is the pro-gunners constantly wrap themselves
    SC has admitted he's anti-gun, but he wants to be shown over and over where he's posted it. Well, here it is. He's calling other people people "pro-gunners". That leaves only two categories for himself. Anti-gun and neutral. If you're neutral, you don't give a rat's butt and you don't bother posting. Whatta ya know? That leaves only anti-gun!!!
    FyredUp and Chenzo like this.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Anyone else see a trend.....
    By BCmdepas3280 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-16-2006, 01:12 AM
  2. Noticeable Trend?
    By ltoffd in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-02-2004, 01:30 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-24-2004, 11:11 AM
  4. Disturbing Trend - MUTT x 4
    By RspctFrmCalgary in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-21-2002, 10:42 AM
  5. Disturbing Trend
    By firedog11ku in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-01-2001, 10:03 PM

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