“report any psychologically problematic gun owners to the authorities”
- What “authorities”? Who exactly should be empowered to judge what is someone else’s mind?
Ok for all you folks who want gun control, I know you mean well but many of you are very very uniformed and have no clue about the very guns you want to ban or have more control over so here is a little lesson on the AR15
1. it is a semi automatic gun what that means is you have to pull the trigger each and every time the gun goes boom.... it is NOT a machine gun
It is the most popular rifle in the USA because of it is easy to maintain you can make it fit you by changing things like cheek pieces length of stock type of hand grip etc . this makes it very popular because the same gun can work for a woman or a man and none of these changes make it a assault weapon.
I use one for hunting and the reason is there is no wood to chip or break no exposed steel to rust it is comfortable to carry and it is accurate now none of the elk or deer I have taken through the years knew the difference between this gun and say a wood stocked bolt action rifle they both do the job IMO the AR type rifle does it better for me.
OK so the California shooters they bought the pistols legally NOT the rifles they were either given to them by another person or stolen or both in any case that is against the law and called a straw purchase STRIKE ONE! next they did not have the California required Bullet button , what is this>? OK the magazine release on a stock AR15 is just a button you push in ,it makes it fast to reload and easy. The bullet button required by CA. takes a sharp object or a Bullet to push it in making reloading much slower . STRIKE TWO! also High capacity magazines like the ones used by the shooters are illegal in California STRIKE 3!!! no also they took these guns to a gun free zone STRIKE 4!!! so at what point do they simply become criminals? they will not follow the law we see this by all the laws they broke so WHAT GUN CONTROL LAW WOULD HAVE STOPPED THEM?
p.s. They murdered 14 People and wounded 21 others they are CRIMINALS they do not follow the LAW!
[Edited on 12/7/2015 by Rydethwind]
We are still waiting for our friends here in the W/P to actually post their proposal for “gun-control” legislation.
They rant constantly about “gun-control” but never have an idea, plan or suggestion.
The Left has been following this empty rhetoric for decades but has produced nothing. Even their politicians have been ineffective.
Democrats' talk after deadly terror shootings echoes past, unfulfilled promises on gun violence
We are still waiting for our friends here in the W/P to actually post their proposal for “gun-control” legislation.
They rant constantly about “gun-control” but never have an idea, plan or suggestion.
The Left has been following this empty rhetoric for decades but has produced nothing. Even their politicians have been ineffective.
Democrats' talk after deadly terror shootings echoes past, unfulfilled promises on gun violence
Empty rhetoric? The Dems proposed a law that would keep people on the terror watch list from getting guns. The conservative Republicans blocked it. The Republicans are fond of offering thoughts and prayers when these massacres take place but block any solution, no matter how small, to the solution. How about they get off their collective asses and do something? Or are you OK with the status quo? Can you answer that without an adolescent insult?
You can pass any law you want but it will NOT stop a terrorist or criminal from getting a gun if they want one! that is a fact! they will use any means lawfull or not to get a gun so how will making another law stop them? all the more laws do is make it harder and harder for law abiding citizens to have and purchase guns the whole argument is stoopid!
Pass a law making it a crime to be a gang banger if your logic had any validity then all gang members would stop being in gangs right?
You can pass any law you want but it will NOT stop a terrorist or criminal from getting a gun if they want one! that is a fact! they will use any means lawfull or not to get a gun so how will making another law stop them? all the more laws do is make it harder and harder for law abiding citizens to have and purchase guns the whole argument is stoopid!
Pass a law making it a crime to be a gang banger if your logic had any validity then all gang members would stop being in gangs right?
We can't do anything so we should do nothing? How many mass murders have to occur before you agree that there are too many guns in this society?
I will never say there are to many guns in this country or society guns are not the problem every gun in this country will lay there and never do anything unless some one PULLS THE TRIGGER so what is the problem? people sick evil people!
It truly sickens me that is all this arguing that the true meaning if the second amendment is lost guns are for protecting your self and your state from tyrants and their minions we would still be British subjects if not for guns, they gave us our freedom and they will keep our freedom no country wants to attack this country on our soil because they know we all have guns that is the reason for the second, that is the reason for knowing gun saftey and being responsible like 99% of all gun owners!
“report any psychologically problematic gun owners to the authorities”
- What “authorities”? Who exactly should be empowered to judge what is someone else’s mind?
You have to remember that the objective is to identify risky Individuals in the law abiding gun owning community. There has to be some level of authority responsible for decision making. This is basically an alternate system of identify checking as it is generally agreed that the current system of background checks is not working.
There are very tangible behavioral clues for professionals to be able to determine mental fitness: Individual constantly expresses hatred towards different groups and Individual has a problem with authority figures, etc. The evaluating figure from these examples can see that Individual might have a problem complying with societal norms and recommend both monitoring and restrictive firearm access. The monitoring might be taken on by fellow community members who would be better placed to understand another community member.
I will never say there are to many guns in this country or society guns are not the problem every gun in this country will lay there and never do anything unless some one PULLS THE TRIGGER so what is the problem? people sick evil people!
It truly sickens me that is all this arguing that the true meaning if the second amendment is lost guns are for protecting your self and your state from tyrants and their minions we would still be British subjects if not for guns, they gave us our freedom and they will keep our freedom no country wants to attack this country on our soil because they know we all have guns that is the reason for the second, that is the reason for knowing gun saftey and being responsible like 99% of all gun owners!
Are you serious? Nobody will attack us because we have guns? What happened in san Bernadino? What happend on 9/11? What happened at Ft Hood? Didn't anyone shoot back? What a dumb statement you made.
You can pass any law you want but it will NOT stop a terrorist or criminal from getting a gun if they want one! that is a fact! they will use any means lawfull or not to get a gun so how will making another law stop them? all the more laws do is make it harder and harder for law abiding citizens to have and purchase guns the whole argument is stoopid!
Pass a law making it a crime to be a gang banger if your logic had any validity then all gang members would stop being in gangs right?
We can't do anything so we should do nothing? How many mass murders have to occur before you agree that there are too many guns in this society?
We could do summary execution on the gang bangers. "You shot up this neighborhood and killed people including kids. Sorry, but you're outta here. " Hang 'em from the corner lamp post and let the message get across.
of course that's just a scenario.
You can pass any law you want but it will NOT stop a terrorist or criminal from getting a gun if they want one! that is a fact! they will use any means lawfull or not to get a gun so how will making another law stop them? all the more laws do is make it harder and harder for law abiding citizens to have and purchase guns the whole argument is stoopid!
Pass a law making it a crime to be a gang banger if your logic had any validity then all gang members would stop being in gangs right?
We can't do anything so we should do nothing? How many mass murders have to occur before you agree that there are too many guns in this society?
We could do summary execution on the gang bangers. "You shot up this neighborhood and killed people including kids. Sorry, but you're outta here. " Hang 'em from the corner lamp post and let the message get across.
of course that's just a scenario.
We could execute every gun owner who uses it to commit a crime.
of course, that's just a scenario.
We could do summary execution on the gang bangers. "You shot up this neighborhood and killed people including kids. Sorry, but you're outta here. " Hang 'em from the corner lamp post and let the message get across.
of course that's just a scenario.
We could execute every gun owner who uses it to commit a crime.
of course, that's just a scenario.
I find both of those scenarios very interesting. I would like to add that friends and associates of those people should also be investigated.
I believe we need a national gun licensing and registration system. Anyone who does not comply, ANYONE who does not comply, should be executed.
No member of congress D or R has voiced support for killing police officers. Not one.
_______________________________________________________________________
Wrong again.
The Congressional Black Caucus's Democrat members openly supports the Black Lives Matter militants.
The Black Lives Matter militants call for the killing of police officers.Try again son.
No member of congress D or R has voiced support for killing police officers. Not one. Nothing you post can change that. #pantsonfire
________________________________________________________________________
Your head in the sand view of the world fits perfectly with your low-info voter status.
Get informed son. You may someday be able to form a viable opinion.You have no idea what you are talking about. #SSDD
_________________________________________________________________________
Thanks for proving my point.
Hey Mule thank you for proving my point that your support of the shooter in the planned parenthood center makes you a traitorous terrorist who should be removed from society. You are a danger to public safety. A commie Putin loving terrorist traitor!
[Edited on 12/7/2015 by BillyBlastoff]
We could do summary execution on the gang bangers. "You shot up this neighborhood and killed people including kids. Sorry, but you're outta here. " Hang 'em from the corner lamp post and let the message get across.
of course that's just a scenario.
We could execute every gun owner who uses it to commit a crime.
of course, that's just a scenario.
I find both of those scenarios very interesting. I would like to add that friends and associates of those people should also be investigated.
I believe we need a national gun licensing and registration system. Anyone who does not comply, ANYONE who does not comply, should be executed.
So you side with Trump on the terrorists?
ROCHESTER HILLS, Mich. -
The Oakland County Sheriff's Office said deputies found more than 100 guns in a Rochester Hills home when they arrested a 68-year-old man Tuesday after he allegedly tried to kill his wife.
Deputies were responding to a domestic assault call at the home in the 2500 block of John R Road. The woman was talking with her husband in the bedroom of the home when he got up and said he was going to kill her and grabbed her around the neck, according to the Sheriff's Office. She was able to get away from him and retreated to the basement to call 911.
While on the phone, her husband came down the stairs and pointed a gun at her. He fired two shots. He then went back upstairs leaving her alone in the basement. Both shots missed the woman, who then ran outside to wait for Sheriff's deputies.
John Lewis Piotrowski, 68, was arrested and lodged at the Oakland County Jail. Deputies removed 145 weapons from the residence for safekeeping. This included 87 rifles and 58 handguns.
Piotrowski was charged with assault with intent to murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, and two counts of possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony.
Piotrowski was arraigned by video at the 52-3 District Court in Rochester Hills by Judge Nancy Carniak. He received a $500,000 bond, no 10 percent. His next court date is Dec. 15 in front of Judge Julie Nicholson for an exam.
I'm sure he was just trying to protect his home. There should be some reasonable number of guns/rounds of ammunition that a person can have before it is seen as an issue.............
I will never say there are to many guns in this country or society guns are not the problem every gun in this country will lay there and never do anything unless some one PULLS THE TRIGGER so what is the problem? people sick evil people!
It truly sickens me that is all this arguing that the true meaning if the second amendment is lost guns are for protecting your self and your state from tyrants and their minions we would still be British subjects if not for guns, they gave us our freedom and they will keep our freedom no country wants to attack this country on our soil because they know we all have guns that is the reason for the second, that is the reason for knowing gun saftey and being responsible like 99% of all gun owners!
Are you serious? Nobody will attack us because we have guns? What happened in san Bernadino? What happend on 9/11? What happened at Ft Hood? Didn't anyone shoot back? What a dumb statement you made. [/quot
America has never been invaded by a army or other force.. read your history..
I will never say there are to many guns in this country or society guns are not the problem every gun in this country will lay there and never do anything unless some one PULLS THE TRIGGER so what is the problem? people sick evil people!
It truly sickens me that is all this arguing that the true meaning if the second amendment is lost guns are for protecting your self and your state from tyrants and their minions we would still be British subjects if not for guns, they gave us our freedom and they will keep our freedom no country wants to attack this country on our soil because they know we all have guns that is the reason for the second, that is the reason for knowing gun saftey and being responsible like 99% of all gun owners!
Are you serious? Nobody will attack us because we have guns? What happened in san Bernadino? What happend on 9/11? What happened at Ft Hood? Didn't anyone shoot back? What a dumb statement you made.
America has never been invaded by a army or other force.. read your history..
And you think that has something to do with average citizens with guns? That's laughable.
And besides that, you may be in need of a history lesson yourself. You say the US has "never been invaded by a army or other force" but that is not correct. The War of 1812 had several famous battles fought on US soil which had been taken/occupied by foreign forces (mostly British). Granted it was a long time ago and you may not think it is germane to this discussion. However, it is in fact that war and the multiple failures of citizen militias throughout that led to the US to abandon its use of citizen militias and create a regular force of professional soldiers, i.e. a real military.
I will never say there are to many guns in this country or society guns are not the problem every gun in this country will lay there and never do anything unless some one PULLS THE TRIGGER so what is the problem? people sick evil people!
It truly sickens me that is all this arguing that the true meaning if the second amendment is lost guns are for protecting your self and your state from tyrants and their minions we would still be British subjects if not for guns, they gave us our freedom and they will keep our freedom no country wants to attack this country on our soil because they know we all have guns that is the reason for the second, that is the reason for knowing gun saftey and being responsible like 99% of all gun owners!
Are you serious? Nobody will attack us because we have guns? What happened in san Bernadino? What happend on 9/11? What happened at Ft Hood? Didn't anyone shoot back? What a dumb statement you made.
America has never been invaded by a army or other force.. read your history..
And you think that has something to do with average citizens with guns? That's laughable.
And besides that, you may be in need of a history lesson yourself. You say the US has "never been invaded by a army or other force" but that is not correct. The War of 1812 had several famous battles fought on US soil which had been taken/occupied by foreign forces (mostly British). Granted it was a long time ago and you may not think it is germane to this discussion. However, it is in fact that war and the multiple failures of citizen militias throughout that led to the US to abandon its use of citizen militias and create a regular force of professional soldiers, i.e. a real military.
I guess if the US military can't prevent an invasion with their advanced training and weaponry, average American citizens will unite and beat back the invaders. I guess our tax dollars have been wasted on the military for all of these years.
It's all about the benjamins...
The Senators Who Voted Against Background Checks Have Received $27 Million From the NRA
On Thursday evening, the Senate voted down two gun control proposals introduced by Democrats as legislative response to multiple mass shootings across the United States this week. The measures, put forward as amendments to an Obamacare repeal package, would have banned the purchase of firearms by individuals on the FBI's Terrorist Screening Database and expanded background checks for firearm purchases to include weapons purchased at gun shows and online.
On its surface, the proposals' failure is the latest installment of the political stalemate between Democrats, who favor expansion of gun control legislation, and Republicans, who support the expansion of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. But beyond the stated philosophical differences between the parties — the votes fell almost entirely along party lines — the staunch opposition to the measures also highlight an important component of the battle over firearms in Congress: the influence of the National Rifle Association, particularly when it comes to financial support of candidates and their campaigns.
According to a Mic analysis of political spending data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics, the NRA, —often cited as the most influential lobbying organization in the country — has spent a total of $27,205,245 in support of the 50 senators who voted against background check expansion on Thursday. That amount includes direct donations to their campaign committees, outside spending in support of the candidate — that is, political expenditures made independently of candidates' committees — and outside spending against their opponents, spread across their entire political careers.
Nine senators have received more than $1 million in total support — many during the 2014 midterm election cycle:
Hot as a three-dollar pistol: Over the course of their careers in public office dating back to 1989, the 49 Republicans and lone Democrat who voted against the expansion of background checks have received $1,114,304 in direct donations, at an average of $22,286 each. (The one Democrat to vote against the measure, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of South Dakota, has never received support from the NRA.) Some Republicans have fared better than others in direct donations: Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a current presidential hopeful, has received no money in direct donations from the NRA, while Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Al.) has received $85,400 in direct support. Shelby's voting record in support of the group and its policy objectives has been, in the words of its policy arm, "unwavering."
But direct donations make up only a small amount of the money that the NRA has sent in the direction of its supporters. The group has spent $11,850,747 in outside spending in support of candidates, at an average of $237,015 per official. Three senators have received indirect support into the seven figures: Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) with $1,225,129, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) with $1,958,814 and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) with $1,961,654.
But the majority of the money spent in support of senators who voted against universal background checks — a measure supported by 92% of Americans and 74% of rank-and-file NRA members — was spent against their opponents. If the enemy of one's enemy is one's friend, then the NRA may count a sizable portion of the Senate among its closest allies: The NRA has spent $14,240,194 in outside expenditures to knock out the opponents of those who voted down the background check expansion. Of the 50 senators who voted against universal background checks, 14 were indirect beneficiaries of that money.
Money talks: The NRA is staunchly opposed to virtually every form of gun regulation: national databases of gun purchases, the gathering of statistics on gun-related deaths, so-called "assault weapons" bans, mandatory waiting periods and, most recently demonstrated, the implementation of universal background checks for those who wish to purchase a firearm. If recent legislative history is any indication, it appears to be succeeding.
The failure of the amendments seeking to universalize the background checking system currently in place in gun shops across the nation was only the latest victory secured in part by the NRA's war chest. After a 20-year-old man killed 20 elementary school children, six adult staff members, his mother and himself in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012, the NRA combated the resultant furor over background check loopholes head-on.
A week after the shooting, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre famously declared that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," and vowed to fight legislation aimed at restricting access to firearms or munitions. Legislation introduced soon after in Congress — the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 and the Manchin-Toomey Amendment, a previous version of the amendment that failed on Thursday — were both defeated on April 17, 2013.
According to Shooting Tracker, there have been 979 mass shootings in the United States since that date.
OK I will say it in a different way so all you horse riding folks do not get butt hurt over it .
No modern Army has invaded the United States and one of the biggest deterrents is because Americans are armed which is the point of the second Amendment...
Simply look at the resistance during world war two they gave the Germans fits . or any of the underground freedom fighters
how do you think the Jews in Poland and Germany would have fared if they would have been armed? no their guns were taken from them they had none , they had no means to protect themselves from again evil people...
I hate this happening in the U.S as much as anyone but I am not willing to rip the constitution apart to quell the fears of the liberals who what? would not even want to defend this country if it was invaded? I mean where do the liberals stand they want guns gone but how do you then defend yourself against thugs ,home invasion or whatever what is your answer?
Tell our police chiefs all across America that they are wasting their time with those annoying mental evaluations on recruits. Tell those Chiefs the tests won't prevent A bad apple from getting in. Videotape it and post the chief's reaction here so I can get a good laugh.
I hate this happening in the U.S as much as anyone but I am not willing to rip the constitution apart to quell the fears of the liberals who what? would not even want to defend this country if it was invaded? I mean where do the liberals stand they want guns gone but how do you then defend yourself against thugs ,home invasion or whatever what is your answer?
Mike, I'm one of the most liberal guys I know. I don't want guns gone at all. Besides, even if I did, that's impossible anyway.
Past that, though, "death by mass shooting" has become an accepted risk in our society. I think that sucks. Do you?
all the hoops and traps placed in front of us law abiding citizens who wish to purchase firearms by state and federal regulation and laws.
You consider the gun purchasing process "hoops and traps"? How complicated is it in your state to buy a gun?
In my state...18 years old and pass a 30 second electronic background check and you can walk out of Bass Pro Shops with enough weapons and ordinance to invade Bolivia.
Ryde,
You say you hate that these mass shootings are happening, and that evil people are the problem, and not guns. I agree with you on that. So don't you want to make sure these idiots don't get one? As a gun enthusiast, don't you wish to stop seeing the gun's reputation being dragged through the mud along with its enthusiasts? I figured that the one group who would be most interested in preventing lunatics from getting guns would be your group - the enthusiast group. Why let them tarnish your hobby?
Again I ask, HOW is expanding background checks going to hurt YOU, or take away YOUR rights to be a gun hoarder if you are a law abiding citizen of sound mental health???. BTW 90 percent of americans agree with this.
1) Just how do you want to expand the background checks? They already check for criminal record and if the person was mentally adjudged "defective". Read the ATF Form 4473 I posted and look at the questions it asks.
2) Where are all these differing percentage points about gun control coming from? Could someone please post a link to where this information is.
No modern Army has invaded the United States and one of the biggest deterrents is because Americans are armed which is the point of the second Amendment.
Completely ludacris.
Freedom is not a hobby.
Again I ask, HOW is expanding background checks going to hurt YOU, or take away YOUR rights to be a gun hoarder if you are a law abiding citizen of sound mental health???. BTW 90 percent of americans agree with this.
1) Just how do you want to expand the background checks? They already check for criminal record and if the person was mentally adjudged "defective". Read the ATF Form 4473 I posted and look at the questions it asks.
2) Where are all these differing percentage points about gun control coming from? Could someone please post a link to where this information is.
_______________________________________________________________________
Don’t look for an answer.
1.) The liberals scream for “gun-control” but never offer legislation that addresses the actual problems with the broken background check system, ties in a nation-wide mental health records system (that doesn’t exist) nor will democrat governors and mayors enforce the laws.
2.) You’ll never get a link because the numbers the liberals here state come from left-wing blogs and opinion pieces. No basis in fact.
Now the left is trying a no-fly no-buy line. It doesn’t seem to occur to them that the no-fly list is even worse than the so-called “terrorist watch list”. Neither list is anywhere close to accurate or complete. The Department of Homeland Security has 65 armed employees on the no-fly list. If you follow the lefts plan those DHS employees would have to have their service weapons taken away.
Liberals blah blah blah...... the left blah blah blah..... no solutions, just daily bashing...... ho hum.....
Liberals blah blah blah...... the left blah blah blah..... no solutions, just daily bashing...... ho hum.....
___________________________________________________________________________
Still waiting for the liberals legislative proposal. Let's see it. Put it on the table or STFU.
