Plenty of "Good Guys with Guns" But 6 Injured Anyway

[KNB]

Why won't right-wing fringe lunatics use their precious 2nd Amendment rights to defend any other Constitutional rights?

Case in point: mouth-breathing Teabaggers bore arms against America to defend Cliven Bundy, a rich racist criminal who lost in court many times over 20 years. At the same time, the NSA is still violating everyone's 4th Amendment rights as a matter of standard procedure with the approval of right-wing fringe lunatics who say that the big government's unwarranted surveillance of Americans is "necessary to defending freedom from terrorists".

Also, why is the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment always ignored? Does anyone believe that the uninformed rednecks in Nevada were "well-regulated"? They talked it over and decided the best idea was for the brave rednecks to hide behind their unarmed girlfriends to force an armed standoff with US Federal agents to protect a rich racist criminal who continuously lost in court for 20 years. Only in the psychotic fundamentalist minds of right-wing fringe lunatics would that be considered a "well-regulated" militia.

 

[bripat9643]

Why won't right-wing fringe lunatics use their precious 2nd Amendment rights to defend any other Constitutional rights?

Case in point: mouth-breathing Teabaggers bore arms against America to defend Cliven Bundy, a rich racist criminal who lost in court many times over 20 years. At the same time, the NSA is still violating everyone's 4th Amendment rights as a matter of standard procedure with the approval of right-wing fringe lunatics who say that the big government's unwarranted surveillance of Americans is "necessary to defending freedom from terrorists".

Democrats are the only ones defending Obama's management of the NSA. Most right-wingers are adamantly opposed to allowing spy agencies to collect information on Americans.

Also, why is the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment always ignored? Does anyone believe that the uninformed rednecks in Nevada were "well-regulated"? They talked it over and decided the best idea was for the brave rednecks to hide behind their unarmed girlfriends to force an armed standoff with US Federal agents to protect a rich racist criminal who continuously lost in court for 20 years. Only in the psychotic fundamentalist minds of right-wing fringe lunatics would that be considered a "well-regulated" militia.

The "well regulated militia" clause is purely explanatory. It has no legal import.

 

[Pogo]

Why won't right-wing fringe lunatics use their precious 2nd Amendment rights to defend any other Constitutional rights?

Case in point: mouth-breathing Teabaggers bore arms against America to defend Cliven Bundy, a rich racist criminal who lost in court many times over 20 years. At the same time, the NSA is still violating everyone's 4th Amendment rights as a matter of standard procedure with the approval of right-wing fringe lunatics who say that the big government's unwarranted surveillance of Americans is "necessary to defending freedom from terrorists".

Democrats are the only ones defending Obama's management of the NSA. Most right-wingers are adamantly opposed to allowing spy agencies to collect information on Americans.

Also, why is the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment always ignored? Does anyone believe that the uninformed rednecks in Nevada were "well-regulated"? They talked it over and decided the best idea was for the brave rednecks to hide behind their unarmed girlfriends to force an armed standoff with US Federal agents to protect a rich racist criminal who continuously lost in court for 20 years. Only in the psychotic fundamentalist minds of right-wing fringe lunatics would that be considered a "well-regulated" militia.

The "well regulated militia" clause is purely explanatory. It has no legal import.

Then why is it in there? A bill of rights doesn't need to go into Wiki explanations for their basis. It doesn't need any explanation.

And maybe more relevant -- if that's all it is, then it's unique among all the others.

Nine amendments simply declare themselves, but this one all by itself needs explanation? Doesn't add up. Unless you read it as a qualification; then it makes sense.

 

[zeke]

What is there to have a "serious discussion" about? You have your views on gun ownership and they won't change and I have mine and Brian has his.

But hurt over this perceived lack of respect? I guess it comes from engaging the likes of 2amendment, goforit, skookerisabill and a few other gun nutters who could care less about the deaths of anyone else for any reason. People who celebrate the killing of thief's. Gun nutters who are so callous to those that lost kids to accidental shootings, loved ones to gun suicides and other loved ones to domestic violence with a gun. And you say nothing to these people. Don't they offend you? If you have a kid and the kid goes over to a friends house and the friend shows your kid his Dad's loaded gun and your kid gets shot, how you gonna act then?

On that topic. Why you keep saying someone convicted of domestic violence can't buy a gun. Did you ever stop and think that they wouldn't have been convicted of domestic violence until they killed or wounded their spouse. Talk about avoiding the subject by deflection.

Buddy of mine not to long ago killed himself. He had a domestic violence problem and couldn't buy a gun in a gun store. He had no problem finding a private seller to purchase the .45 he shot himself with.

Responsible gun owners such as yourself should be interested in stopping this kind of violence and promote rules and regs to help stop it.

Instead you fight tooth and nail to keep ANY kind of reasonable restrictions from being enacted. Why?

People have been convicted of domestic violence for simple physical fights. They have not seriously injured or killed anyone, and yet they are not allowed to buy guns. I agree with that. If you cannot control yourself enough not to hit your partner, you lack the self-control necessary to be a gun owner.

As for the backgrond checks for private sales, all I have said is to ask how we accomplish it without making everyone able to dial a phone capable of gaining personal information. Most background checks include your social security number. I am willing to give that to a licensed dealer, but not to some jackleg selling a single shot hunting rifle.

As for my kid being shot with his friend's father's gun, I have said (several times) that I am in favor of safe storage laws. And yet you continue to throw up my supposed opposition to it. When will it register that I agree with you on this?

And if you want to know why I am opposed to legislation that I believe will not make a difference, you have only to look at the most restrictive gun laws and the places that have them. Chicago, NY and DC did not start out with ridiculously restrictive gun laws. It is incremental. Until it gets to the point that private gun ownership is virtually impossible. A perfect example is NY's new gun laws. They have made any gun capable of holding more than 7 rounds illegal. That means that my M1911-A1, with an 8 round magazine is completely illegal. The gun was designed over 100 years ago. And yet it is lumped in with machineguns as far as private ownership. And the cities with the most restrictive gun laws also have some of the worst gun violence. Those laws do not work, so the politicians pander to the uninformed and press for more and greater restrictions. It is about taking away control, not promoting safety.

While removing high capacity magazines might make a small difference in the rare occasions, the fact that it won't make a huge change will prompt some to push for more. As NY did.

And then you have those, like KingNosmo, who insist that all semi-auto weapons should be banned and destroyed. There is no rational basis for this. His views on firearms is obviously uninformed. And yet, when the restriction for less than 10 rounds per mag passes and does not change anything,his view will seem rational to other uninformed people.

As for your buddy, I am sorry for your loss. But if he used a gun to commit suicide then he was serious about wanting to die. If he had been unable to obtain a gun, I see no reason to believe he would not have managed his suicide via another method.

I guess my biggest complaint is that we have these discussions, and yet you totally ignore the things I have said in agreement with you. I have pushed for safe storage rules, legislation and laws. And yet, you continue to berate me for not wanting to do so.

Which makes me wonder why I bother to join these discussions, since you are obviously not paying any attention to what I say.

Winterborn. I do not intend to personally insult or berate you. I have used YOU as a metaphor for all the crazy gun nutters that I come into contact with. My apologies.

But let me ask you this. I just read an article about the guns that are being offered for sale with electronic locks. In this article it stated that the NRA and the gun nutters of New Jersey went bat shit crazy, to the point of threatening the owner of the gun store, for OFFERING these guns for sale.

Why? And why were the more reasonable gun fans not coming out and shouting down the guns nutters who were so strongly opposed to a weapon with an electronic lock?

Those kinds of gun nutters are the ones I have issues with.

Couple that kind of gun owner with the fact that, although I have owned and been around guns most of my life, I have NEVER had to use them in the way that I thought I might need them. In other words, I haven't shot anyone. I haven't even had to threaten anyone with a gun.

However, I do know a family whose kid found dads gun and killed himself. The aforementioned suicide. Actually two gun suicides. I have had a gun put in my face. My crazy Dad always had a gun(s) and did crazy things with them.

Funny gun story. My BIL has rentals. He was having trouble with a tenant. He went to his house to confront this tenant with his gun in his shoulder holster. As the confrontation progressed, he pushed his coat back to reveal his 9mm in the holster. The tenant, deciding that it must be show and tell time for guns, went into the house and came back with his AR15. My BIL got in his truck and left. Funny shit don't ya think? 9mm vs AR15.

Everybody has a POV about guns. Do you not know anyone who had bad thing happen to them because of guns? If you don't, good for you. But there are a lot of our fellow Americans who have suffered great loss from gun violence.

Have a little empathy is all I am saying. Maybe there is nothing to be done about it. We are a violent society and tend to glorify violence. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

I actually wish that the 2nd had never been written into the COTUS. Today it serves no purpose other than to make it really easy for us to kill each other. And I would bet that IF the framers KNEW what a mess the 2nd would create, they would have at least written it in more concise language.

 

[Star]

What is there to have a "serious discussion" about? You have your views on gun ownership and they won't change and I have mine and Brian has his.

But hurt over this perceived lack of respect? I guess it comes from engaging the likes of 2amendment, goforit, skookerisabill and a few other gun nutters who could care less about the deaths of anyone else for any reason. People who celebrate the killing of thief's. Gun nutters who are so callous to those that lost kids to accidental shootings, loved ones to gun suicides and other loved ones to domestic violence with a gun. And you say nothing to these people. Don't they offend you? If you have a kid and the kid goes over to a friends house and the friend shows your kid his Dad's loaded gun and your kid gets shot, how you gonna act then?

On that topic. Why you keep saying someone convicted of domestic violence can't buy a gun. Did you ever stop and think that they wouldn't have been convicted of domestic violence until they killed or wounded their spouse. Talk about avoiding the subject by deflection.

Buddy of mine not to long ago killed himself. He had a domestic violence problem and couldn't buy a gun in a gun store. He had no problem finding a private seller to purchase the .45 he shot himself with.

Responsible gun owners such as yourself should be interested in stopping this kind of violence and promote rules and regs to help stop it.

Instead you fight tooth and nail to keep ANY kind of reasonable restrictions from being enacted. Why?

People have been convicted of domestic violence for simple physical fights. They have not seriously injured or killed anyone, and yet they are not allowed to buy guns. I agree with that. If you cannot control yourself enough not to hit your partner, you lack the self-control necessary to be a gun owner.

As for the backgrond checks for private sales, all I have said is to ask how we accomplish it without making everyone able to dial a phone capable of gaining personal information. Most background checks include your social security number. I am willing to give that to a licensed dealer, but not to some jackleg selling a single shot hunting rifle.

As for my kid being shot with his friend's father's gun, I have said (several times) that I am in favor of safe storage laws. And yet you continue to throw up my supposed opposition to it. When will it register that I agree with you on this?

And if you want to know why I am opposed to legislation that I believe will not make a difference, you have only to look at the most restrictive gun laws and the places that have them. Chicago, NY and DC did not start out with ridiculously restrictive gun laws. It is incremental. Until it gets to the point that private gun ownership is virtually impossible. A perfect example is NY's new gun laws. They have made any gun capable of holding more than 7 rounds illegal. That means that my M1911-A1, with an 8 round magazine is completely illegal. The gun was designed over 100 years ago. And yet it is lumped in with machineguns as far as private ownership. And the cities with the most restrictive gun laws also have some of the worst gun violence. Those laws do not work, so the politicians pander to the uninformed and press for more and greater restrictions. It is about taking away control, not promoting safety.

While removing high capacity magazines might make a small difference in the rare occasions, the fact that it won't make a huge change will prompt some to push for more. As NY did.

And then you have those, like KingNosmo, who insist that all semi-auto weapons should be banned and destroyed. There is no rational basis for this. His views on firearms is obviously uninformed. And yet, when the restriction for less than 10 rounds per mag passes and does not change anything,his view will seem rational to other uninformed people.

As for your buddy, I am sorry for your loss. But if he used a gun to commit suicide then he was serious about wanting to die. If he had been unable to obtain a gun, I see no reason to believe he would not have managed his suicide via another method.

I guess my biggest complaint is that we have these discussions, and yet you totally ignore the things I have said in agreement with you. I have pushed for safe storage rules, legislation and laws. And yet, you continue to berate me for not wanting to do so.

Which makes me wonder why I bother to join these discussions, since you are obviously not paying any attention to what I say.

Where you find lots-o-people you'll find more people stuff going on, including gun violence but-----but if you want to see where the most gun violence per capita is taking place it looks like 24/7 Wall St. is saying - looser gun laws = more gun violence...

I did a lot of cuttin', slicin' and dicin' to the article below but-----but you can see the entire article by clicking the link.


States With The Most Gun Violence: 24/7 Wall St.
By Samuel Weigley
April 15, 2013

Based on data provided by the Center for American Progress, 24/7 Wall St. analyzed the 10 states with the most gun violence. These rankings were based on 10 different criteria, including 2010 firearm homicide deaths per 100,000 people and 2011 firearm-related aggravated assaults. Calculated by the Center, the average rank among all states for each criteria was used to determine the ranking. We also considered data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, such as a state’s crime rate per 100,000 people and property crime rates, as well as the crime rates for large metropolitan areas. Gun laws by state were compiled by the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action and various news outlets. All data are for the most recent available years.

These are the 10 states with the most gun violence.


10. Georgia
> Firearm homicide deaths per 100,000: 4.57 (9th highest)
> Firearm aggravated assaults per 100,000: 58.64 (13th highest)
> Violent crime rate per 100,000: 373.2 (21st highest)
> Need permit to purchase handgun: No
> Governor: Nathan Deal (R)

9. Arkansas
> Firearm homicide deaths per 100,000: 4.53 (10th highest)
> Firearm aggravated assaults per 100,000: 100.56 (3rd highest)
> Violent crime rate per 100,000: 480.9 (10th highest)
> Need permit to purchase handgun: No
> Governor: Mike Beebe (D)

8. Missouri
> Firearm homicide deaths per 100,000: 5.59 (4th highest)
> Firearm aggravated assaults per 100,000: 88.90 (5th highest)
> Violent crime rate per 100,000: 447.4 (12th highest)
> Need permit to purchase handgun: No
> Governor: Jay Nixon (D)

7. New Mexico
> Firearm homicide deaths per 100,000: 3.69 (18th highest)
> Firearm aggravated assaults per 100,000: 87.26 (6th highest)
> Violent crime rate per 100,000: 567.5 (4th highest)
> Need permit to purchase handgun: No
> Governor: Susana Martinez (R)

6. South Carolina
> Firearm homicide deaths per 100,000: 4.95 (7th highest)
> Firearm aggravated assaults per 100,000: 127.88 (2nd highest)
> Violent crime rate per 100,000: 571.9 (3rd highest)
> Need permit to purchase handgun: No
> Governor: Nikki R. Haley (R)

5. Mississippi
> Firearm homicide deaths per 100,000: 6.91 (2nd highest)
> Firearm aggravated assaults per 100,000: 51.69 (19th highest)
> Violent crime rate per 100,000: 269.8 (18th highest)
> Need permit to purchase handgun: No
> Governor: Phil Bryant (R)

4. Arizona
> Firearm homicide deaths per 100,000: 4.24 (13th highest)
> Firearm aggravated assaults per 100,000: 57.36 (16th highest)
> Violent crime rate per 100,000: 405.9 (19th highest)
> Need permit to purchase handgun: No
> Governor: Jan Brewer (R)

3. Alabama
> Firearm homicide deaths per 100,000: 5.92 (3rd highest)
> Firearm aggravated assaults per 100,000: 40.50 (23rd highest)
> Violent crime rate per 100,000: 420.1 (16th highest)
> Need permit to purchase handgun: No
> Governor: Robert Bentley (R)

2. Alaska
> Firearm homicide deaths per 100,000: 4.22 (14th highest)
> Firearm aggravated assaults per 100,000: 80.47 (9th highest)
> Violent crime rate per 100,000: 606.5 (2nd highest)
> Need permit to purchase handgun: No
> Governor: Sean Parnell (R)

1. Louisiana
> Firearm homicide deaths per 100,000: 9.53 (the highest)
> Firearm aggravated assaults per 100,000: 99.51 (4th highest)
> Violent crime rate per 100,000: 555.3 (7th highest)
> Need permit to purchase handgun: No
> Governor: Bobby Jindal (R)


.

 

[Star]

The kid who shot up the high school, firing 50 rounds and killing 2 people, should never have been out on his own. He was mentally ill. His classmates knew it, his parents knew it, and the psychologists who evaluated him likely knew it.

from: Kip Kinkel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Kinkel's parents enrolled him in anger management and had him evaluated by psychologists. Shortly before his murder, Kinkel's father confided to a friend that he was "terrified" and had run out of options to help his son."

Are you saying we should lock people up because they might-----might commit a crime?

Question - how many kids have been treated successfully vs how many kids with behavioral problems have shot up their schools?
.

 

[Star]

WTF?? Are you saying that the Cliven Bundy allies are all violent felons??

I have no idea where you came in with the crap about a solution being rounding up those people.

You seem to be unaware that threatening a federal agent is a felony?
.

And you seem to be unaware that I have been referring to violent, convicted felons. I have not made this about Bundy at all.

You're the one that brought up felonies, are you now saying you get to pick and choose which felonies and which types of people, and/or are you saying that when someone puts a Federal Agent in the crosshairs of their AR-15 it's not a for real threat, it's just a pretend threat and-----and you seem to know a lot about firearm safety so-----so just as a reminder, as you know, you only pull/point your weapon if you're prepared to take the shot - and whether you like it or not, threatening violence to a federal agent is a felony.

You don't make the rules about what does and does not get brought up on a M/B and-----and when you brought up violent felonies you opened the door to -- "violent felonies?" and-----and you can respond to what you brought up or run away -- your call...
.

 

[WinterBorn]

The kid who shot up the high school, firing 50 rounds and killing 2 people, should never have been out on his own. He was mentally ill. His classmates knew it, his parents knew it, and the psychologists who evaluated him likely knew it.

from: Kip Kinkel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Kinkel's parents enrolled him in anger management and had him evaluated by psychologists. Shortly before his murder, Kinkel's father confided to a friend that he was "terrified" and had run out of options to help his son."

Are you saying we should lock people up because they might-----might commit a crime?

Question - how many kids have been treated successfully vs how many kids with behavioral problems have shot up their schools?
.

I don't think he needed to be locked up. But getting him into counselling and removing firearms would be a god first step. I have raised 4 kids, so I know it would not be easy. But, as a parent, you do what is best.

 

[WinterBorn]

You seem to be unaware that threatening a federal agent is a felony?
.

And you seem to be unaware that I have been referring to violent, convicted felons. I have not made this about Bundy at all.

You're the one that brought up felonies, are you now saying you get to pick and choose which felonies and which types of people, and/or are you saying that when someone puts a Federal Agent in the crosshairs of their AR-15 it's not a for real threat, it's just a pretend threat and-----and you seem to know a lot about firearm safety so-----so just as a reminder, as you know, you only pull/point your weapon if you're prepared to take the shot - and whether you like it or not, threatening violence to a federal agent is a felony.

You don't make the rules about what does and does not get brought up on a M/B and-----and when you brought up violent felonies you opened the door to -- "violent felonies?" and-----and you can respond to what you brought up or run away -- your call...
.

The difference is that I have repeatedly said "convicted felons". If the guys out there pointing guns get convicted for a violent felony, then keep their asses locked up.

Felons account for 75% of the gun murders in this country. And 86% of felons released from prison are rearrested within 5 years.

 

[hunarcy]

Also, why is the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment always ignored? Does anyone believe that the uninformed rednecks in Nevada were "well-regulated"? They talked it over and decided the best idea was for the brave rednecks to hide behind their unarmed girlfriends to force an armed standoff with US Federal agents to protect a rich racist criminal who continuously lost in court for 20 years. Only in the psychotic fundamentalist minds of right-wing fringe lunatics would that be considered a "well-regulated" militia.

mostly because the "well-regulated militia" is merely one justification for the 2nd Amendment and the actual right is an individual right (...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms...)

And, in the jargon of the day, "well-regulated" meant in good working order, not trained.

 

[hunarcy]

The kid who shot up the high school, firing 50 rounds and killing 2 people, should never have been out on his own. He was mentally ill. His classmates knew it, his parents knew it, and the psychologists who evaluated him likely knew it.

from: Kip Kinkel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Kinkel's parents enrolled him in anger management and had him evaluated by psychologists. Shortly before his murder, Kinkel's father confided to a friend that he was "terrified" and had run out of options to help his son."

Are you saying we should lock people up because they might-----might commit a crime?

Question - how many kids have been treated successfully vs how many kids with behavioral problems have shot up their schools?
.

If he has a mental illness, he should be confined to a hospital to get help, just as he'd be confined to a hospital to get help if he had small pox.

 

[Papageorgio]

https://www.facebook.com/gagunowner...23123.143195412381888/781515125216577/?type=1

Well good for you, you rarely get off your cyber duff and verify your point. I'm impressed.

Now...answer the other question about what businesses DO allow guns on the property.

Starbucks.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[The Professor]

Would somebody like to verify this loose excuse and tell me, besides a police or sheriff's station, WHERE guns are allowed on business property?

I put five letters after my name: MBA and JD. I know a lot about businesses and a hell of a lot about the law. I have also had a concealed weapons permit for decades so I know where I can and where I cannot take my weapon. I am not going to debate you; instead I will tell you what the law is and then leave you.

Each state that allows concealed-carry has its own laws governing where such weapons may be taken. As far as I know no state allows a concealed weapon to be taken into a bar or place whose primary purpose is the serving of alcoholic beverages, and states have other restrictions as well. If the law does not prohibit weapons from being taken into a specific location, such as a Sears store, there would be no violation of the law for doing so. The single exception would be if Sears did not permit firearms on its premises. Of course, no one is expected to be a mind reader so if Sears didn't want those with concealed permits to bring their guns inside the store they would have to give proper notice such as a proper sign conspicuously posted.

This is no more than common sense and I shouldn’t have to provide you with a link, but since you are such a doubter here are two of the millions of links available:

“CHICAGO — With the new concealed-carry gun law now in effect, the city sent out an email earlier this week to business owners reminding them that the new law requires a 'No Gun' sign posted 'clearly and conspicuously' at the entrance to their business if they do not want firearms on premises.

Don't Want Weapons in Your Shop? Put Up No-Gun Signs, City Says - Chicago - DNAinfo.com Chicago

"'If the business is not an automatically prohibited place, then it is presumed that individuals may carry a concealed fire arm into the business,' Gibbons said. 'If it is not automatically prohibited by law, it is presumed that people may carry a firearm into that business unless you put up a sign that says you can't.'

“A new sign, a 4-by-6-inch sticker, is available for Illinois businesses to obtain and let employees and customers know concealed firearms are not permitted. Gibbons said the property owner where the business operates ultimately decides whether concealed firearms are allowed on the premises.”

Gun law: Carry on ... unless a business posts this sign | Metro-east news | News Democrat

Concealed-carry law can be complicated, so if you ever consider carrying you must be an expert on the laws in your state. I've already told you that states prohibit carrying a weapon into a place whose primary purpose is serving alcoholic beverages. This means that you can carry into a liquor store since they sell liquor but don't serve it. If you go into a building which has both a restaurant and a bar you can go to the restaurant to have a meal since the primary purpose of the restaurant is to serve food, not alcohol. You can even order drinks while you are sitting at your restaurant table. However, if you go into the bar to have a plain coke you have broken the law.

Now, I am going to ask you a question: What do you think would make it illegal for a person to conceal-carry into a Sears store? The laws of your state don't prohibit it so what would make it illegal? The only answer possible answer is that Sears will not allow it and they have made their intentions clear. Perhaps you think – erroneously so – that permit holders cannot take their weapons into a business unless the business has a "guns welcome" sign on their front door; however, this is contrary to the way the laws are written.

Conclusion: You can carry your concealed weapon anywhere you like unless either (1) your state's laws prohibit it; or (2) the business objects and gives you proper notice. You will find that the places you can carry are a hell of a lot closer to 100 percent than 90 percent.

As I told you, I will not debate you on this matter. I have told you what you need to know and I'm outta here.