Contrary to popular belief

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Problems with that;

The constitution of the United States reads "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That is pretty clear, so the only legitimate way to start banning large groups of weapons is to pass a constitutional amendment. That is not going to happen.

There are hundreds of millions of guns in the USA, a large proportion of which are semi-autos, including the majority of handguns. Limiting access to them is roughly the equivalent of limiting access to dirt....there is simply too much of it around.

Finally, and simply put, people will not comply. Full stop.
To keep and bear arms. Cool. I think I'll move south and start collecting goodies like the GAU 8/A, perhaps a few Scorpion missiles, and RBR-90 mm M79s. Maybe even import a neat toy like a Leopard 2A7 or PSO. :D I like fun machinery. The hell with pissant popguns like M16s and Steyr AUGs.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
The problem is we are treating mental illness and it is the drugs being used that are the problem. See post #31 above. Even going back to the 70s when the guy shot up Mickie Dee's we knew he was on Prozac. Yet we keep doping people up with dangerous drugs and when they lose it we blame weapons. With emotional issues like this, logic seems to fly out the window.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Are all teachers sane? Arming teachers, what is next armed patrols in malls, day cares, playgrounds. Arming people is not a solution it ignores the many issues that cause these slaughters.

I think arming teachers is a hell of a good idea..................................a lot of obstreperous kids would be a hell of a lot better behaved!
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
I see no one caught that tid bit of haha.

I'm glad you did. Thanks Bear

Washington DC. had a complete ban on guns and had one of the highest murder rates due to gun violence. I think they actually topped the charts a few years during the ban.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I'm glad you did. Thanks Bear

Washington DC. had a complete ban on guns and had one of the highest murder rates due to gun violence. I think they actually topped the charts a few years during the ban.
But banning guns works... according to the jerked knees.
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
All this armed teacher stuff is kooky talk. Let's reign it in and be serious for once people. Rational.


Dem Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee: No, To Arming Teachers – Yes, To Retractable Steel Walls!…


KPFT 90.1 FM: Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, Democrat, Houston, is speaking out about tighter gun laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy. This audio interview excerpt is from the KPFT 90.1 FM Local News at 4pm broadcast for Monday, December 17, 2012.

@WZ - YouTube

Retractable...steel...walls.
 

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
11,371
578
113
59
Alberta
Why is it that we get pissed off when crazy people elsewhere murder the innocents, but become defensive when it is one of our own. Colpy, the argument regarding the constitution and the right to bear arms somehow trumps the rights of innocent people being murdered at the hands of lunatics who are in possession of weapons lawfully (yet not necessarily) owned. This is of course conjecture, but I would ask you to weigh how important it is for a civilian to own a semi automatic weapon that is not intended for hunting? Is it more important than the lives of those 20 kids who were mercilessly killed only weeks before Christmas. Is it really man?

I'm not talking about an all out gun ban, but the United States Gun Lobby has become a caricature of a zealot religious nut. There is no plausible argument to arm civilians with semi automatic weapons. None. I think of these kids gunned down, the kids at Colombine, the Children who died at Waco (not by the gun, but the loon sure had a lot) and the scores of others who were not a big enough statistic to make it onto CNN or Fox. How many of these kids lives are worth the sacrifice to you as a gun owner.

I am not an American, but this is a huge problem in America. Twenty six people lost their lives and by proxy another 50 or 80 close family members have been scarred for the rest of their lives as a result. How can anyone with an inkling of conscience stand up and say that that this young man who murdered his Mother, 20 elementary school kids, and five school officials, any that any future massacre or murder is irrelevant to a discussion about limiting firearms.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Why is it that we get pissed off when crazy people elsewhere murder the innocents, but become defensive when it is one of our own. Colpy, the argument regarding the constitution and the right to bear arms somehow trumps the rights of innocent people being murdered at the hands of lunatics who are in possession of weapons lawfully (yet not necessarily) owned. This is of course conjecture, but I would ask you to weigh how important it is for a civilian to own a semi automatic weapon that is not intended for hunting? Is it more important than the lives of those 20 kids who were mercilessly killed only weeks before Christmas. Is it really man?

Two answers here- 1. The lives are more important.........2. One doesn't necessarily preclude the other.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Why is it that we get pissed off when crazy people elsewhere murder the innocents, but become defensive when it is one of our own. Colpy, the argument regarding the constitution and the right to bear arms somehow trumps the rights of innocent people being murdered at the hands of lunatics who are in possession of weapons lawfully (yet not necessarily) owned. This is of course conjecture, but I would ask you to weigh how important it is for a civilian to own a semi automatic weapon that is not intended for hunting? Is it more important than the lives of those 20 kids who were mercilessly killed only weeks before Christmas. Is it really man?

I'm not talking about an all out gun ban, but the United States Gun Lobby has become a caricature of a zealot religious nut. There is no plausible argument to arm civilians with semi automatic weapons. None. I think of these kids gunned down, the kids at Colombine, the Children who died at Waco (not by the gun, but the loon sure had a lot) and the scores of others who were not a big enough statistic to make it onto CNN or Fox. How many of these kids lives are worth the sacrifice to you as a gun owner.

I am not an American, but this is a huge problem in America. Twenty six people lost their lives and by proxy another 50 or 80 close family members have been scarred for the rest of their lives as a result. How can anyone with an inkling of conscience stand up and say that that this young man who murdered his Mother, 20 elementary school kids, and five school officials, any that any future massacre or murder is irrelevant to a discussion about limiting firearms.

My opinion- Best post on this thread.
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
All this armed teacher stuff is kooky talk. Let's reign it in and be serious for once people. Rational.


Dem Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee: No, To Arming Teachers – Yes, To Retractable Steel Walls!…


KPFT 90.1 FM: Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, Democrat, Houston, is speaking out about tighter gun laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy. This audio interview excerpt is from the KPFT 90.1 FM Local News at 4pm broadcast for Monday, December 17, 2012.

@WZ - YouTube

Retractable...steel...walls.

Ah, panic rooms in schools. Yeah that makes so much more sense than imposing some kind of limitation on fire arms possession.


That's a real sticky issue Goob's.

It is a sticky issue but it's one that needs to be talked about more. When it's not just your life that you're risking, it becomes about more than just the patient. If we had a dangerous communicable disease, society has no compunctions about restricting someone to quarantine to protect the public. Now I'm not advocating that we lock up everyone that has a mental illness, the goal should be release and integration, for most, but it's not unreasonable to want to look at the broader picture.

Why is it that we get pissed off when crazy people elsewhere murder the innocents, but become defensive when it is one of our own. Colpy, the argument regarding the constitution and the right to bear arms somehow trumps the rights of innocent people being murdered at the hands of lunatics who are in possession of weapons lawfully (yet not necessarily) owned. This is of course conjecture, but I would ask you to weigh how important it is for a civilian to own a semi automatic weapon that is not intended for hunting? Is it more important than the lives of those 20 kids who were mercilessly killed only weeks before Christmas. Is it really man?

I'm not talking about an all out gun ban, but the United States Gun Lobby has become a caricature of a zealot religious nut. There is no plausible argument to arm civilians with semi automatic weapons. None. I think of these kids gunned down, the kids at Colombine, the Children who died at Waco (not by the gun, but the loon sure had a lot) and the scores of others who were not a big enough statistic to make it onto CNN or Fox. How many of these kids lives are worth the sacrifice to you as a gun owner.

I am not an American, but this is a huge problem in America. Twenty six people lost their lives and by proxy another 50 or 80 close family members have been scarred for the rest of their lives as a result. How can anyone with an inkling of conscience stand up and say that that this young man who murdered his Mother, 20 elementary school kids, and five school officials, any that any future massacre or murder is irrelevant to a discussion about limiting firearms.

I agree with you completely. As someone who does not own a gun, has never fired a gun, never even held one nor do I have any desire to, this is my thought on the subject, for what it's worth. I think we get carried away, on both sides of the debate, talking about banning, banning, banning. It's quite ridiculous as far as I'm concerned. There has to be some middle ground here, there just has to be. But this issue, like so many controversial issues, gets bogged down in the rhetoric of the extremists.

An all out ban is never going to work. Criminals aren't really known for giving a crap about laws anyway. So that makes no sense, especially when you're not dealing with the real heart of the issue (mental health or whatever the underlying issue is), a 'ban' in those circumstances is like the ultimate band-aid solution only. What isn't unreasonable though is putting limitations on types of weapons that can be owned, for the general public at least, and stringent requirements, focused on safety, that need to be met in order for the general public to legally own a weapon. No we can't prevent someone from obtaining whatever gun they want on the black market but we can have enough safeguards in place so that we can be as reasonably assured as possible that those legally sanctioned weapons purchases are not going to be used in this type of event.

It'll never be perfect but we can definitely strive to do a hell of a lot better. People need to look inward and really assess their priorities.
 

Angstrom

Hall of Fame Member
May 8, 2011
10,659
0
36
America is at that point.

We live in a Unreal society. Our everyday lives are so twisted and warped.
Money. Government and technology all distort reality so much. we look lost.

We are Completely out of balance we have lost touch. We no longer can see the truth.
Its like the blind leading the blind.

Sometimes there is nothing you can do. And you have to live with it.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Problems with that;

The constitution of the United States reads "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That is pretty clear, so the only legitimate way to start banning large groups of weapons is to pass a constitutional amendment. That is not going to happen.

There are hundreds of millions of guns in the USA, a large proportion of which are semi-autos, including the majority of handguns. Limiting access to them is roughly the equivalent of limiting access to dirt....there is simply too much of it around.

Finally, and simply put, people will not comply. Full stop.

I think the action required by the UN concerning the desirability of an unarmed civilian population will be pursued with all necessary vigor to it's bloody conclusion, that of complete compliance with disarmament. I believe the Patriot Act can and will circumvent the constitution. It's a matter of efficiency I think, the unarmed will be much easier to herd and the lock down of continental USA would proceed in the face of economic disaster. The guns have to go or the ultra rich. Guess which will be selected.
totalitarian nirvana is impossible in the midst of heavily armed dissent.
 

Spade

Ace Poster
Nov 18, 2008
12,822
49
48
9
Aether Island
No civilian in his right mind needs an assault weapon. The ownership/possession must be made illegal. Grant a short amnesty for the turning in and compensation for their removal from civil society. Then, the manufacture, distribution, for and to ordinary citizens, must also be a criminal offence with mandatory gaol sentences.

Furthermore, the distribution of firearms through gun shows must be closely regulated.
 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
Everyone relax. Worst case scenario will be a 'clip limitation' and reactivating the automatic weapons ban.

They may, and should, institute that everyone who sells, even a private sale from you to me, the seller will be required to do a background search on the purchaser. I'm thinking the FAC in Canada.

Now this would not have done anything in this case as the guns belonged to his mother, but just like driving a car into a crowd, sometimes there's not to much you can do to prevent a nutter from getting their hands on a gun short of a gun safe that the nutter dosen't know how to get into.

Obummer say's they are going to see what they can do to make it easy to have 'troubled' people analyzed. And that is interesting. The mother apparently, tried to straighten the kid out on her own and failed. She mentioned to him that she was going to take him to possibly be institutionalized and that morning he said no, by shooting her. She had the financial ability to have him seen by a psychiatrist but if he didn't want to go it appears that their was no way to force him since he hadn't committed a crime. And how will they get to the point of someone calling an agency to "come look at my kid/spouse/whomever" because they are acting very strange is indeed complicated.


And all this talk of an armed guard/teachers at the schools is bs as well. Chances of this happening again are minimal but unless the guard/teacher has an automatic weapon themself and was at the right spot at the right time, they would be taken out or at least substantial carnage would happen before he arrived on the scene...........
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
Everyone relax. Worst case scenario will be a 'clip limitation' and reactivating the automatic weapons ban.

They may, and should, institute that everyone who sells, even a private sale from you to me, the seller will be required to do a background search on the purchaser. I'm thinking the FAC in Canada.

Now this would not have done anything in this case as the guns belonged to his mother, but just like driving a car into a crowd, sometimes there's not to much you can do to prevent a nutter from getting their hands on a gun short of a gun safe that the nutter dosen't know how to get into.

Obummer say's they are going to see what they can do to make it easy to have 'troubled' people analyzed. And that is interesting. The mother apparently, tried to straighten the kid out on her own and failed. She mentioned to him that she was going to take him to possibly be institutionalized and that morning he said no, by shooting her. She had the financial ability to have him seen by a psychiatrist but if he didn't want to go it appears that their was no way to force him since he hadn't committed a crime. And how will they get to the point of someone calling an agency to "come look at my kid/spouse/whomever" because they are acting very strange is indeed complicated.


And all this talk of an armed guard/teachers at the schools is bs as well. Chances of this happening again are minimal but unless the guard/teacher has an automatic weapon themself and was at the right spot at the right time, they would be taken out or at least substantial carnage would happen before he arrived on the scene...........