Gun Control?

[Markfan]

I don't understand why schools can't have the same sort of entrances and security that theme parks have. That is, gates, turnstiles where ID is presented for entry, and a small contingent of armed security present in case something goes terribly wrong.

Think about it. If it's good enough for Disneyland, where absolutely nobody objects, and is still a safe haven for children, why can't it be good enough for the schools those same kids begrudingly go to instead of the Disneyland they'd much rather go to?

While it sounds good on paper, the proposition is as likely to happen as the American public accepting the metric system as their primary measuring method (complete with every single distance and speed sign being converted) or the Mandarin and English languages falling out of favor globally due to their inconsistency, inefficiency and generally cluttered nature.

 

[DERacing]

I'm not missing the point at all. If you feel the 2nd amendment should only be for protection, well that's bull.

You are worried about the government? An elected government by and for the people. Gotta ask, do you live in Montana in a compound? People should NEVER have more weaponry than the government, unless you want to overthrow A ELECTED GOVERNMENT AS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION. The same one you bring up with the 2nd amendment.

The two were training props. Please show me the markings on the Law rocket.

Feral hogs. Oh my that is a good one. Really. A .357/9mm will drop one.

A background check does not include sealed mental records.

Oh, when I was in boot camp, yes we called our M-16 magazine's clip's and vice versa.

Ok. By all means.... Tell me what other definition you have for it. Cause I dont see anything in there about taking deer with a firearm.

Im NOT worried about the government. And just because they were elected, does not mean they cannot turn while in office. Montana compound... Right. I said nothing about overthrowing an elected government. I stated that the 2nd Amendment is a safeguard put into the constitution to stop tyranny and yes... it would be in accordance with the constitution to overturn if they were moving away from the Republic form. I bet you think that the 2nd amendment only covers cap and ball muskets too dont you? :-/

Inert Training AT4's and marked as such.

That should answer that question.

Then while in bootcamp you were trained wrong if you called your magazine a clip.

Sealed medical records are not checked in a background check, this is correct, that is a HIPPA regulation not a lack of laws in relation to a firearm purchase.

Question 11F of the ATF Form 4473 CLEARLY asks:

"Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetant to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?"

Keep in mind, lying on this form is a federal crime.

Show me where I said that a .357/9mm would not stop a feral hog. I stated a HUNTING purpose for the AR platform that some seem to think does not exist. Please dont try to twist my words or patronize me. I am well aware of what the ballistics capabilities of various ammunition is capable and not capable of.

Ok... What else ya got. I can do this all night long.

 

[DERacing]

SNIP

That brings me to my final point. When someone signs for a background check on a gun, they should do a complete check. The moment you sign a piece of paper, any right to privacy as to sealed documents or Dr.'s privilege is out the window. You want a gun, these are the conditions. That being said, I would not qualify under my guidelines for owning a gun.

Just out of curiosity, what would be your disqualifier in legally purchasing a firearm?

Do you have a sealed medical record?

 

[MattSRD28]

It was designed to guarantee that the citizens of this country could not be a victim of a tyranical government. That is not possible if the government has more weapons capability than the citizens.

The idea that any unorganized band of rebels could fight the power of the U.S. military (government) with all of its forces, such as those unmanned drones, is an amusing one.

Exactly what gun could a private citizen own that could possibly challenge a B2 stealth bomber or those unmanned drones?


Don't get me wrong. I'm not for a repeal or denouncement of the 2nd amendment by any means. I'm just saying the argument that the 2nd amendment was written, and should stay, in order to give the people a chance against the organized military should it ever be turned against us, is a very weak argument.

 

[celticfang]

Actually, this statement is totally false!
I saw the man interviewed. He stated that he did not have a safe line of fire and was waiting for people to move out of his line of fire before discharging his weapon. The shooter saw him, and moved into a stairwell then killed himself. The CCW holder did exactly what he should have done. He did not panic, but because he did not have a clear shooting lane, he calmly waited. He did not have to wait long, because the shooter killed himself because the CCW holder acted as a responsible gun owner.

Moral of the story: More CCW holders on the streets, makes them safer for all.

No, that's a blanket assumption.

You are assuming every CCW holder does the right thing and obeys the law all the time. That simply is not the case. I'd rather not have a street I'm walking down have a lot of CCW holders, I personally would feel unsafe about it.

You're also assuming all CCW holders would shoot if given a clear shot and not freeze up out of fear or panic. It is human nature to not kill. It takes a lot of training or mental instability to take a human life.

Besides, theer's illegal CCW holders, criminals. Do they make the streets safer? No they do not at all.

Matt, there was a bit in the news about a Texas school wanting an ID system and being sued on religious grounds. If an ID system was mandatory I can see some of the far out religions (all of them mind you) claiming it breaches some bit of their religion and suing over it. Which is stupid.

 

[Exterminator]

No, that's a blanket assumption.

You are assuming every CCW holder does the right thing and obeys the law all the time. That simply is not the case. I'd rather not have a street I'm walking down have a lot of CCW holders, I personally would feel unsafe about it.

You're also assuming all CCW holders would shoot if given a clear shot and not freeze up out of fear or panic. It is human nature to not kill. It takes a lot of training or mental instability to take a human life.

Besides, theer's illegal CCW holders, criminals. Do they make the streets safer? No they do not at all.

Matt, there was a bit in the news about a Texas school wanting an ID system and being sued on religious grounds. If an ID system was mandatory I can see some of the far out religions (all of them mind you) claiming it breaches some bit of their religion and suing over it. Which is stupid.

Why is it that you continue to litter this thread with false statements you present as facts?

You say that I have assumed so much. Let me tell you what my 56 years have taught me. Most people are good and some are very bad. As a veteran, I never wanted to kill anyone, but when you are being fired upon, or you see a buddy in need of help, you do what you have to do. My religious views tell me that killing is the greatest sin. It also tells me that God is everywhere. I figure that he was there, he saw the situations I was in, and he would not have given me the instinct to survive if he had not intended me to use it.

Perhaps you don't understand the process that most states use in granting CCW permits. In most cases, people that receive permits, have had formal training. There is an extensive background investigation. I do not see how you can state that there are illegal CCW holders. As far as freezing up goes, there are always some that will freeze in an emergency situation. That is why the police and military do so much training. You are less likely to freeze when you have been trained how to react in a given situation.

There are many more people out there that are like me. When they see someone needing help, they go towards the trouble, instead of running away. Perhaps you will now call me mentally unstable because of this. In Maryland, where I live, it is nearly impossible to get a CCW permit. Our laws on this were recently challenged in federal court and were found unconstitutional. Still, unless you are a retired policeman, or have had credible threats made against your life, you will have a tough time getting a CCW here.

This is because too many liberals have fooled the masses into believing that by somehow keeping guns from responsible citizens will somehow make everyone safer. This sadly, has never been shown to be effective. In fact, the opposite is true. In areas of the United States that allow open carrying of firearms, crime is nearly non-existent. By contrast, areas that make handguns illegal to own, crime rates are unusually high. Examples: D.C., Chicago, New York.

 

[canadienhits]

Just out of curiosity, what would be your disqualifier in legally purchasing a firearm?

Do you have a sealed medical record?

Yes I do

 

[celticfang]

Liberals or not, false statemens are my opinion that I am NOT taking as facts. They are merely my opinion that I'm stating in this thread, that is the point of a discussion isn't it?

Or are you one of those 'Oh hey you aren't American so you should have no say' people that seem to spring up whenever a mass shooting happens? I'm not specifically calling you out, but I have heard that thrown around at people ever since the shootings.

The fact about the ID system is that there was a school in Texas that is facing a lawsuit against it on religious grounds, here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/suit-targets-locator-chip_n_2204822.html (also follow the links)

ID cards won't solve such a lawsuit as long as people will sue over it, that is one of the big reasons it won't be 100% adopted though.

You are calling my opinions false statemtns because...hmm, let's see. I said it's my opinion that I wouldn't feel safe around CCW holders. I know how you get a CCW permit in the following states:

Colorado
Idaho
California
Massachusetts (one small area admitedly)
Ohio

So no I do know what it takes to get one, but it does not change my opinion that I do not feel safe around them, just as some people do not feel safe with closed cockpit doors on airplanes or with Google's driverless cars.

By 'illegal CCW holders', I meant criminals, which I said in my post, I was making the point that criminals conceal and use weapons regardless of the law, and they do not make the streets safer.

You can't and shouldn't speak for everyone however, that again is another assumption you are making that everyone is like you when people have varying opinions and stances.

As a veteran, I never wanted to kill anyone, but when you are being fired upon, or you see a buddy in need of help, you do what you have to do

I know active soldiers on both sides of the Atlantic who would disagree with you on that point however, that is like telling a cop to wade into a riot to rescue an injured colleague. At some point self preservation kicks in and overrides any training. See the fight or flight response.

There have been medal winners who have stayed out of situations and won awards for that (WWII, Arnheim for instance) just as there's been medal winners who have gone to help people and paid the ultimate price.

There are many more people out there that are like me. When they see someone needing help, they go towards the trouble, instead of running away. Perhaps you will now call me mentally unstable because of this. In Maryland, where I live, it is nearly impossible to get a CCW permit. Our laws on this were recently challenged in federal court and were found unconstitutional. Still, unless you are a retired policeman, or have had credible threats made against your life, you will have a tough time getting a CCW here.

This is because too many liberals have fooled the masses into believing that by somehow keeping guns from responsible citizens will somehow make everyone safer. This sadly, has never been shown to be effective. In fact, the opposite is true. In areas of the United States that allow open carrying of firearms, crime is nearly non-existent. By contrast, areas that make handguns illegal to own, crime rates are unusually high. Examples: D.C., Chicago, New York.

Illegal carrying is not the only factor in crimr rates though, there's a lot more to it than a simple cause and effect factor, you have to take everything into account and look at all the factors rather than just one thing and jump to a conclusion. Yes, DC, Chicago and NY have violent gun crime rates, they have violent crime rates in general besides gun crime.

Criminals will use whatever they get their hands on to commit a crime, if instead of guns it was sandwiches, we'd see a rise in sandwich crimes however.

Lastly, no I am not calling you mentally unstable, but as a veteran you have been trained differently to an average citizen or a cop, would an average citizen go toward any trouble or walk away from it?

 

[Exterminator]

I see what the cause of our disagreement is, now.

I have never been able to reason with anyone that gets their news from the Huffington Post. In my opinion, anyone that considers them to be reputable, is either a radical leftist, mentally deficient, or fooling themselves. I try never to argue with people that get their news there or The Comedy Channel.

Sorry if I misunderstood your statements. Usually, when I express an opinion, I will state that is is just that, as above.

One more thing,... CCW holders are those that are legally issued a permit. Criminals are not CCW holders, they are criminals!

Something else,... If you read the article you referenced, you will find it is not an ID system as you state, but it is a tracking system. They are trying to sneak it by in an ID card. In my opinion, this is an invasion of privacy. No school should have the right to track students!

 

[The Captain]

It was a nice thread until a couple people chose mudslinging over actual discussion. Figured that would happen eventually.

 

[4WideRacing]

No I am not a cop. Just for in case type of thing. You would be shocked by how many people conceal carry. Woman also out number men. The funny part is you would never now it.

So you are for concealed carry for yourself but not teachers at their place of work. :-/ That was the point I was making. I know all about how a lot of people conceal carry.

Do you believe it would be easier to train teachers how to handle crisis and a firearm rather than put someone in the building (law enforcement) who already knows how to handle both? When I have children one day, I want to know their teachers are qualified to properly educate my children. I could not care less if one carries a firearm and would honestly feel a bit uncomfortable if they carried in the classroom. It's a school building, not a wild west saloon.

Many of the teachers already know how (Veterans and CCW holders etc.). One officer can't do the same as many teachers.

Actually, this statement is totally false!
I saw the man interviewed. He stated that he did not have a safe line of fire and was waiting for people to move out of his line of fire before discharging his weapon. The shooter saw him, and moved into a stairwell then killed himself. The CCW holder did exactly what he should have done. He did not panic, but because he did not have a clear shooting lane, he calmly waited. He did not have to wait long, because the shooter killed himself because the CCW holder acted as a responsible gun owner.

Moral of the story: More CCW holders on the streets, makes them safer for all.

Thank You!

You are worried about the government? An elected government by and for the people. Gotta ask, do you live in Montana in a compound? People should NEVER have more weaponry than the government, unless you want to overthrow A ELECTED GOVERNMENT AS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION. The same one you bring up with the 2nd amendment.

They are elected right now but happens if something changes, think Hitler (I know he was originally elected and see how it turned out).

Besides, theer's illegal CCW holders, criminals. Do they make the streets safer? No they do not at all.

Criminals don't have to get a CCW to conceal carry, they are already breaking the law, why not just break another.

By 'illegal CCW holders', I meant criminals, which I said in my post, I was making the point that criminals conceal and use weapons regardless of the law, and they do not make the streets safer.

So, if they are breaking the law and not having a CCW how does having true CCW's make the streets less safe?

 

[The Captain]

So you are for concealed carry for yourself but not teachers at their place of work. :-/ That was the point I was making. I know all about how a lot of people conceal carry.

Did he say he carried at work?

Many of the teachers already know how (Veterans and CCW holders etc.). One officer can't do the same as many teachers.

Unless you can back that up with some numbers, I'm going to assume you're talking out of your ass.

 

[4WideRacing]

Did he say he carried at work?






Unless you can back that up with some numbers, I'm going to assume you're talking out of your ass.

I never said he carried at work.


Back what up? The amount of teachers having CCW's or the 1 officer not being able to do as much as many teachers with guns? I would believe that only the government would know how many of the teachers are vets and have CCW's but I know that about 25% of the teachers I know have one. And I only said many, I never claimed to have numbers.

Definition of MANY

1
: consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number <worked for many years>
2
: being one of a large but indefinite number <many a man> <many another student>

So, it is true that many teachers have been trained through CCW classes and the military.

I only talk out of my heart, brain, and mouth.

 

[The Captain]

I never said he carried at work.

No, but you act as if he said he didn't want teachers carrying. He doesn't want them carrying in the classroom.

Back what up? The amount of teachers having CCW's or the 1 officer not being able to do as much as many teachers with guns? I would believe that only the government would know how many of the teachers are vets and have CCW's but I know that about 25% of the teachers I know have one. And I only said many, I never claimed to have numbers.

So that leaves another 75% that would have to be trained, certified and trusted with a firearm. That's a lot of people to certify to ensure bullets fly from 20 different directions in a building full of children.

So, it is true that many teachers have been trained through CCW classes and the military.

Many have been trained because they chose to be trained. That still doesn't mean they should be allowed to carry on school grounds or that they would be effective in a situation such as taking down a gunman, especially one that has them out gunned like the man in Connecticut. That many guns in one place can easily do more harm than good if everyone suddenly decides to play hero. Just because you're trained to use it doesn't mean you're hitting bullseye every time. I'd rather not have bullets flying from all directions and classrooms. Besides, you can't guarantee that all who already have permits would carry on school grounds anyway. I plan on getting a carry permit someday, but you bet your ass I would still leave the gun at home if I were a teacher. Teachers are there to educate, not be a line of defense. Law enforcement is there to "serve and protect". It would be much easier to increase their presence than to train every teacher and then hope they choose to come to work that day with a gun on their hip. I said it before and I'll say it again. It's a school, not a wild west saloon.

 

[4WideRacing]

No, but you act as if he said he didn't want teachers carrying. He doesn't want them carrying in the classroom.

I worded it in a way that it was clear that I was referring to the teachers when they were "at their place of work".

So that leaves another 75% that would have to be trained, certified and trusted with a firearm. That's a lot of people to certify to ensure bullets fly from 20 different directions in a building full of children.

But those 75% don't have to carry. 25% is better than 0%. And those are only the teachers I know not all of the teachers.

Many have been trained because they chose to be trained. That still doesn't mean they should be allowed to carry on school grounds or that they would be effective in a situation such as taking down a gunman, especially one that has them out gunned like the man in Connecticut. That many guns in one place can easily do more harm than good if everyone suddenly decides to play hero. Just because you're trained to use it doesn't mean you're hitting bullseye every time. I'd rather not have bullets flying from all directions and classrooms. Besides, you can't guarantee that all who already have permits would carry on school grounds anyway. I plan on getting a carry permit someday, but you bet your ass I would still leave the gun at home if I were a teacher. Teachers are there to educate, not be a line of defense. Law enforcement is there to "serve and protect". It would be much easier to increase their presence than to train every teacher and then hope they choose to come to work that day with a gun on their hip. I said it before and I'll say it again. It's a school, not a wild west saloon.

There have been many reports of what the shooter had but what guns did he really have in his hands? Do we even know that he had them "out gunned"? It's unlikely that there would be many guns going off in all directions in a classroom. How many teachers are usually in "a" classroom"? The biggest issue is if they go through walls. I never said that all the teachers would carry. I only said they should be allowed to carry, not forced to. While the teachers primary job is to teach, it isn't the only thing they could do. Law enforcement is great but sometimes there just isn't enough and/or they aren't fast enough. We don't have to train every teacher and we don't need them all carrying to help make schools safer. There shouldn't be drinking in the schools like the saloons had, that should help a lot.

 

[The Captain]

I worded it in a way that it was clear that I was referring to the teachers when they were "at their place of work".

And he never claimed it was okay for people other than teachers to carry at work

There have been many reports of what the shooter had but what guns did he really have in his hands?

He had at least one powerful enough to gun down 20 children and 6 school staff in a short amount of time.

Do we even know that he had them "out gunned"?

"Authorities said Lanza used a military-style assault rifle and carried handguns during the rampage at the school"- Taken from a newsday article

It's unlikely that there would be many guns going off in all directions in a classroom

It doesn't matter if it's a classroom, a gym, a cafeteria or a hallway. If you have multiple guns going off from multiple directions, there is a good chance an innocent bystander could get hit and that includes someone firing at the gunman.

How many teachers are usually in "a" classroom"?

I've seen multiple teachers in a room at once. It's not uncommon for several to be standing around talking during a class change or for a teacher to walk in during a class and bring something to another teacher or feel the need to inform them of something. I can't think of a time when I was in school when there weren't at least some students and teachers walking the halls throughout the day.

While the teachers primary job is to teach, it isn't the only thing they could do

It's also not something they should do. They are there to shape and inspire young minds. They are there to act as role models for future generations. They are NOT there to be a militia.

Law enforcement is great but sometimes there just isn't enough and/or they aren't fast enough

They are still far more qualified to handle a crisis situation than the majority of the teachers in a school building. I'd rather have a couple more officers roaming the halls of a school than have them sitting on the side of the road waiting for someone to not use a blinker.

There shouldn't be drinking in the schools like the saloons had, that should help a lot.

It's like I addressed a box for Chicago and you flew it to Singapore.

 

[DERacing]

The idea that any unorganized band of rebels could fight the power of the U.S. military (government) with all of its forces, such as those unmanned drones, is an amusing one.

Exactly what gun could a private citizen own that could possibly challenge a B2 stealth bomber or those unmanned drones?


Don't get me wrong. I'm not for a repeal or denouncement of the 2nd amendment by any means. I'm just saying the argument that the 2nd amendment was written, and should stay, in order to give the people a chance against the organized military should it ever be turned against us, is a very weak argument.

While I see your angle and point of view, I'll offer these few points:
1. The largest free standing army in the world is the Civilian Gun Owners of the US.
2.Not everyone in the .mil, .gov or leo will follow a tyrannical leader. Some people are good and have goodness in their hearts and take their oaths of office very seriously. And every person I know if in a position of authority swears that they will execute their duties in defense of the constitution. I do not know of ANY soldier or leo that would open fire on a citizen exercising their rights under law and constitution. So I am thinking there wouldnt be a swarm of B2 bombers, F22's or ICBM's in the air.
3. You would be surprised what many ordinary citizens may have in their gun closets, garages, sheds, barns... and all completely legal.

 

[Exterminator]

Well said DERacing!

One thing that some people forget, is that all military personnel are taught that it is up to them to judge if an order they have been given is lawful. Any person that has taken an oath to defend The Constitution has given some thought as to whether an order to attack U.S. citizens would be an order they could follow. In my conversations, I have heard most say they would not follow such an order. Those that would follow such an order, should have been found unfit for military service. Any good person, that has been so directed by a tyrannical leader would turn instead, against such a leader.

As I said in an earlier post,... I believe most people are good. It is sad that some of the most powerful men in this nation, fail to defend The Constitution, and many(Obama in particular) attempt to circumvent it whenever possible to acquire more power. My hope is that if necessary, good people will eventually prevail in reclaiming freedom from such tyranny.

Our founders were very wise and they knew that over time, corrupt individuals would find their way into our government. This is precisely why the 2nd Amendment was passed by Congress and ratified by the states.

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS MY OPINION ONLY. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME AS YOURS. IT IS NOT SANCTIONED IN ANY WAY BY SRD. IT IS NOT MEANT TO INSULT ANYONE. BY READING IT, YOU ASSUME ALL RISK AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR REACTION TO IT.

It is my opinion that everyone that is not found to be mentally unstable, should be allowed to openly carry a firearm. To limit the ability to carry, is infringing on the 2nd Amendment rights we possess and places us all at the mercy of criminal elements we may encounter. Those that don't like guns, do not need to own them, but don't hide behind me when I am facing trouble. When confronted by an enemy in front of me, I cannot also have a liberal behind me, for then I would feel surrounded. I would most likely shoot the liberal first, just on principle. At least the enemy has earned my respect by facing me. Liberals like to stick you in the back.

 

[RogerD83]

Another death by subway train, I think we shoulf ban all subway trains! It does'nt matter how you look at, if a criminal wants to commit a crime he is going to do it with whatever his sick deviant mind has dcided to do it with! Most of the people who buy guns are hard working family people who would like to have the gun incase the criminal element decides to come calling with in their homes. Conceal and carry is great as long as they are smart and law abiding individuals who keep up they're training in the use of the weapons they carry and when to use it and not use it. I am a C & C , as well as a FFL gunsmith. I also served 15 yrs in the military and am also a trainer for firearms saftey and archery safety in my state.
Gun control is fine but by taking away the rights to own and protect yourselves is not the way to do it!

 

[BillyJack79]

I have never been able to reason with anyone that gets their news from the Huffington Post. In my opinion, anyone that considers them to be reputable, is either a radical leftist, mentally deficient, or fooling themselves. I try never to argue with people that get their news there or The Comedy Channel.

You should include FoxNews there, too. Other end of the spectrum, but just as BS. See study here...
STUDY: Watching Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All - Business Insider

1. The largest free standing army in the world is the Civilian Gun Owners of the US.

This has gotta be straight out of the NRA handbook. If it isn't there, it should be.

Lets look again at the 2nd Amendment, as it was ratified. The definition and meaning are right there to be had, all interpretation and conjecture aside.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"A well regulated militia" - Congress defined militia a year after the 2nd Amendment was ratified. See The Militia Acts of 1792. This act stood relatively unchanged until 1903's Militia Act, which officially transferred all state militias to the fed. gov't. creating what we know now as The National Guard.

"When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated. The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves". " - Supreme Court Justice John P. Stevens