Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CNN Piers Morgan Rips Milwaukee Sheriff Over Guns  
User currently offlineIllinoisMan From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 158 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4295 times:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwauk...guns-on-cnn-h98inr1-188955951.html

"Appearing before a nationwide cable-TV audience Tuesday night, Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett traded charges over gun violence.

In the exchanges, refereed loosely by gun-control proponent and CNN's Piers Morgan, Clarke and Barrett debated the role of the sheriff's office, planned furloughs for Milwaukee police officers and calls for federal gun-control laws.

Morgan host of "Piers Morgan Tonight," became part of the fray as well, pressing Clarke to tell him how many people in Milwaukee had defended themselves and their family at home by firing a gun.

"I don't have those statistics," Clarke said. Asked by Morgan to provide a ballpark figure, Clarke replied, "I don't think we need to go there, to be honest with you."

"You haven't got a clue," Morgan sneered."


Well, another day, another heated gun segment from Piers Morgan. Tonight he took on Milwaukee sheriff David Clarke Jr., who suggested earlier this week that instead of “calling 911,” citizens should arm themselves. At one point, Morgan berated Clarke and told him that what he is advocating marks “a return to the Wild West.” I don't know if I agree with the Sheriff here, but I know that I DO NOT like Piers Morgan.

250 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39704 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4284 times:

I have a tremendous amount of respect for sheriff David Clarke Jr.
What he said is spot on and if your're familiar with Milwaukee, particularly the northwest side of town you would fully understand where he is coming from.

Quoting IllinoisMan (Thread starter):
I DO NOT like Piers Morgan.

No one does and it's time to deport his arse!
Join the petition to have him deported. He isn't a good representative of his home country either.
Piers Morgan has had his arse handed to him multiple times by his guest - most recently Newt Gingrich.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineGlobalMoose From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4280 times:

I have much more respect for CNN than MSNBC or FoxNews and I believe that the whole Piers Morgan 'experience' is bringing the network down as a whole.

The Piers Morgan gun issue is starting to bother me (regardless of whether or not I agree with his views); his show is quickly degrading from one that interviews people to a show that exists for Mr. Morgan to express his opinion.

If you want your show to be opinion/editorial in nature, call a spade a spade, don't masquerade as something else.

[Edited 2013-01-29 23:57:56]


When it absolutely positively has to be there ... at some point.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5359 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day ago) and read 4214 times:

Quoting IllinoisMan (Thread starter):
Tonight he took on Milwaukee sheriff David Clarke Jr., who suggested earlier this week that instead of “calling 911,” citizens should arm themselves.


You know, I heard the commercial a couple of times and not once did I hear him say not to call 911. He says:

"With officers laid-off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option.”

It sounds to me like he's saying you have to do things in addtion to calling 911. Like, take some responsibility for your own protection and safety. It is not the police's job to protect you, it's their job to pick-up the pieces.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/socie...says-skip-911-defend-yourself-guns

Quoting Superfly (Reply 1):
No one does and it's time to deport his arse!


Nope, let him keep talking...he just weakens his, and his network's, position and makes CNN look like MSNBC. He does have the right to spew his ignorance.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinedanielmyatt From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2011, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day ago) and read 4198 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 1):
it's time to deport his arse!

I'm not defending the vile oaf that is Morgan, but surely you can't deport someone for opposing the 2nd amendment when the first amendment is a right to free speech?


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5359 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 23 hours ago) and read 4188 times:

Quoting danielmyatt (Reply 4):
I'm not defending the vile oaf that is Morgan, but surely you can't deport someone for opposing the 2nd amendment when the first amendment is a right to free speech?


Apparently there is some precedent on this.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/23/wa...plains-how-to-deport-piers-morgan/

Let him stay. He's entertaining and he certainly isn't undermining the Constitution. In fact, I believe he strengthens it.

[Edited 2013-01-30 03:01:52]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7124 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 22 hours ago) and read 4126 times:

I'm sick and tired of him too. Which is why I just don't watch anything he does. He's always seems to be insulting the United States too. So over him and hope he gets off the air soon. Too think he replaced Larry King. I wasn't a huge fan of him either but at least he had good guest and didnt try to take over the show for himself.


"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12345 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 22 hours ago) and read 4116 times:

Quoting IllinoisMan (Thread starter):
I know that I DO NOT like Piers Morgan.

Another sad irony of the post-Newtown world is that it is making Morgan richer. I'm sure he's got a secure future in books and the talking circuit thanks to being singled out by the right.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 1):
No one does and it's time to deport his arse!
Join the petition to have him deported. He isn't a good representative of his home country either.

Way to go on the Compassionate Conservatism!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 3):
Nope, let him keep talking...he just weakens his, and his network's, position and makes CNN look like MSNBC. He does have the right to spew his ignorance.

Indeed he does, and the more the right push to silence him, the more they look like intolerant jerks.

The way to go would be to ignore him, kind of like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39704 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 4106 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 3):
It sounds to me like he's saying you have to do things in addtion to calling 911. Like, take some responsibility for your own protection and safety.


  
Makes sense to me. That's why we have guns.
You can't have a police officer standing in front of everyone's house. You have to take some responsibility to protect yourself. It's the same as having an emergency back up supplies of food, water & batteries in case of an earthquake, hurricane or other natural disasters. FEMA will not be able to come to your aid immediately.
It's the same has having your fire extinguisher and/or garden hose to help put out a fire in your house until the fire department arrives.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 3):
It is not the police's job to protect you, it's their job to pick-up the pieces.


He never said that. He said they'll respond to as many calls as they can but can't immediately come to eveyone's aid instantly. Don't put words in the man's mouth that he never said.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 3):
let him keep talking...he just weakens his, and his network's, position and makes CNN look like MSNBC.



You raise a very good point.


Mayor Tom Barrett sound clueless and seemed to be caught up in who's role different department's in government serves. He couldn't relate to any of the real life experiences the police officers deal with on a daily basis or the people that live in high crime areas. Typical of an elitist gun grabbing snob. Thought he would have learned something after getting beat over the head with a tire rod iron.
I'm glad he lost the recall election against Governor Scott Walker.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 4069 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 1):
No one does and it's time to deport his arse!

So 1st Amendment does not apply to legally resident foreigners ? I always thought the US Constitution applied to everyone. Like ours.

Quoting danielmyatt (Reply 4):
I'm not defending the vile oaf that is Morgan, but surely you can't deport someone for opposing the 2nd amendment when the first amendment is a right to free speech?

Quite.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 5):
Apparently there is some precedent on this.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/23/wa...plains-how-to-deport-piers-morgan/

A big difference being that Morgan is a legal resident (presumably green card), and that Mandel was denied entry, and had no legal residency established. I see no precedent.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2713 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 4045 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 3):
You know, I heard the commercial a couple of times and not once did I hear him say not to call 911. He says:

"With officers laid-off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option.”

That is his MO. Changing the intent of what people actually said in order to try and shock people. He has been handed his arse repeatadly in his attempt to destroy our right's.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineroswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 4019 times:

Piers Morgan is a complete primadonna and an utter side show clown. He's a tabloid journalist on the run from a disgraced reputation in the UK. He's making a pretty foul reputation for himself in the US save for the most hard line Anti-2nd Amendment crowd.

User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39704 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 4019 times:

Now this is getting hilarious. Piers Morgan is now "threatening" to leave the United States if we don't repeal the 2nd Amendment.   
I find it it hilarious that he think's that is a "threat". I hope it's a promise.


http://www.infowars.com/piers-morgan...fter-infowars-petition-goes-viral/

Quoting danielmyatt (Reply 4):
when the first amendment is a right to free speech?



Your country has free speech but didn't allow Geert Wilders to enter your country because of what he said in his speeches.
I'm sure the British would not take to kindly of an American on your TV networks bad-mouthing your people. It's not just Piers Morgan's views, but his downright insulting of the American people as a whole. Sure I support free speech but I have the right to say that he needs to get the f--k out!
Every country has the right to kick out undesirables and Piers Morgan is one of them. But as I said in my previous post already (#8), if he drags down CNN and continues to expose that network for what it really is, let's keep him around.
A wise British man told me that the proper term to describe Piers Morgan is "wanker".



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineWildcatYXU From Canada, joined May 2006, 2598 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 3996 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 9):
I always thought the US Constitution applied to everyone. Like ours.

Ours? Our constitution doesn't even apply to all Canadian citizens.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 3987 times:

Ugh this debate is getting pretty old (at least on this board) but I'll bite. While I disagree with much Piers Morgan is saying, to threaten to deport him because he disagrees with something (something that a good chunk of our country does, mind you) is pretty silly.

Maybe he's a dirt bag in it for the money, who knows, who cares. We shouldn't let it detract from the original arguments (the ones that matter)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineroswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 3969 times:

No need to deport him. CNN will fire him eventually. His ratings are terrible and only slightly boosted by his gun ban tirades. Jeff Zucker is cleaning house at CNN and Piers may eventually be unemployed. Threatening to deport him only artificially elevates his standing.

User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39704 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 3965 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 14):
Quoting roswell41 (Reply 15):



Re-read post #12.
He is already 'threatening' to leave on his own accord.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 15):
Jeff Zucker is cleaning house at CNN


Good to hear but he may have to do a complete demolition and rebuild. Piers Morgan isn't the only one that needs to go.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 3952 times:

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 13):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 9):
I always thought the US Constitution applied to everyone. Like ours.

Ours? Our constitution doesn't even apply to all Canadian citizens.

Can you explain? While you're doing that I'll take another look at the constitution hanging on the wall of my den.
Unless you're making the narrow point that Quebec has not formally adopted the Constitution in the National Assembly.
I think in practice since Quebec makes constitutional arguments to the Federal and Supreme Courts, they have de facto adopted it.

As well, when you look at the Charter, every clause states either "everyone" or "every citizen".

[Edited 2013-01-30 08:44:58]


Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 17 hours ago) and read 3937 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 1):
No one does and it's time to deport his arse!
Join the petition to have him deported.

What is the legal basis for this argument?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 8):
He said they'll respond to as many calls as they can but can't immediately come to eveyone's aid instantly.

Guns are an extremely divisive debate that most people are pretty steadfast on. Perhaps the sheriff should put more effort into getting more funding for his department so that they can hire more officers and respond to more calls. The community will be safer, and jobs will be created, it's two birds with one stone.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 12):
Your country has free speech but didn't allow Geert Wilders to enter your country because of what he said in his speeches.

fr8mech's link suggests that the US has done the exact same thing, so let's not throw stones here.

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 13):
Ours? Our constitution doesn't even apply to all Canadian citizens.

Can you back that statement up?

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 9):
A big difference being that Morgan is a legal resident (presumably green card), and that Mandel was denied entry, and had no legal residency established. I see no precedent.

  



Flying refined.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39704 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 17 hours ago) and read 3918 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 18):
What is the legal basis for this argument?



Continue reading my post after that statement. Geez!

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 18):
Perhaps the sheriff should put more effort into getting more funding for his department so that they can hire more officers and respond to more calls.



Did you watch the interview? The sheriff wants to do just that and he even said that. The budget cuts is out of his hands. Do you really think he wanted to lay off 42 officers? The budget is in the mayor's court - the man that doesn't think that people deserve the right to defend themselves.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 18):
fr8mech's link suggests that the US has done the exact same thing, so let's not throw stones here.



No one is throwing stones here. Where did fr8mech say that the US kicked out people for what they said.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 17 hours ago) and read 3907 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 7):
The way to go would be to ignore him, kind of like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.

I have news for you.............there are a hell of a lot of people who AREN"T ignoring Beck; why do you suppose he's making millions a year ? He was "cleaning up" while he was on FN; now he's tripled that ! (Beck is laughing at you all the way to the bank !)

As far as this douche-bag Morgan is concerned..........he's well on his way to "self-destructing"........I couldn't possibly care any less what that idiot thinks; (and I haven't watched "commie news network" in ten years, so it's not like he's bothering me any !) (the channel that brings you Soledad O'Brien, right ? (barf, yuck) Maybe Jeff Zucker will kick that Morgan twit out in the snow and hire a REAL dirt-bag to replace him......such as Michael Moore ? That should just about put the final nails in CNN's coffin !

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 16 hours ago) and read 3893 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 19):
Continue reading my post after that statement. Geez!

All you said was that you should kick him out because you don't like him. I understand it's well within the country's rights to kick out whomever they wish and for whatever reason...but I don't see the government bending over backwards to kick out a talk-show host because he's anti-gun.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 19):
Did you watch the interview? The sheriff wants to do just that and he even said that. The budget cuts is out of his hands. Do you really think he wanted to lay off 42 officers? The budget is in the mayor's court - the man that doesn't think that people deserve the right to defend themselves.

I'm not saying he didn't. My point is that the focus is on gun-control which is a futile effort on both sides, and the shriff isn't doing himself any favours by making those statements in front of Piers Morgan. The debate should be about funding which is a significantly more achievable goal.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 19):
Where did fr8mech say that the US kicked out people for what they said.

fr8mech's link gives the example of Marxist Belgian journalist Ernest Mandel being refused entry into the country. This is literally the exact same thing that Britain did to Wilders.

I personally think it was a bad move. Wilders didn't pose a threat. Even the Canadian government blocked him. People that went there to support him are going to support him anyway whether he enters the country or not, and I doubt anybody is going to be swayed by his hateful speech. If anything, he would have been laughed at.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39704 posts, RR: 75
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 16 hours ago) and read 3877 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 21):
All you said was that you should kick him out because you don't like him. I understand it's well within the country's rights to kick out whomever they wish and for w.........



Just as I thought. You didn't continue reading what I post.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 21):
and the shriff isn't doing himself any favours by making those statements in front of Piers Morgan.


Sheriff David Clarke doesn't need to prove jack$h!t to Piers Morgan. I think it's hilarious how you state; "in front of Piers Morgan.
He isn't any sort of authority.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 21):
I doubt anybody is going to be swayed by his hateful speech.



Lot's of hate speeches being made openly in London and it goes unpunished and is swept under the rug. I haven't found Mr. Wilder's to say anything hateful but that isn't the main point of this thread.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 21):
The debate should be about funding which is a significantly more achievable goal.


The mayor had an opportunity to discuss that but he didn't. Milwaukee county is facing the same budget crisis as all other counties, cities and states across the US. Even the federal government is facing a budget crisis.
Sheriff David Clarke is simply giving the most simple solution to deal with the problem of high crime in a cash-strapped county. Sheriff David Clarke can beg for more funding until he turns blue in the face but that wont make money magically appear. Local governments can't print more cash.
Not sure why people are so upset with Sheriff David Clarke when he states to enroll in a gun safety class. Even the anti-gun crowd should be in support of that.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 20):
Soledad O'Brien


Ugh, you just had to mention that turd!   



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 16 hours ago) and read 3873 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 9):
So 1st Amendment does not apply to legally resident foreigners ? I always thought the US Constitution applied to everyone. Like ours.

I believe it does and that was what the white house said when addressing this petition. We can't simply deny Morgan's first amendment rights and kick him out because his opinion makes other uncomfortable.

Quoting GlobalMoose (Reply 2):
The Piers Morgan gun issue is starting to bother me (regardless of whether or not I agree with his views); his show is quickly degrading from one that interviews people to a show that exists for Mr. Morgan to express his opinion.

Isn't that what the other cable news networks do in that time-slot as well.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 5):
Apparently there is some precedent on this.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/23/wa...plains-how-to-deport-piers-morgan/

Let him stay. He's entertaining and he certainly isn't undermining the Constitution. In fact, I believe he strengthens it.

Yeah the guy behind this whole thing is Alex Jones, hardly someone I would see as the best person to take seriously. Although people do.

Look he is offering an opinion and while I don't agree with every point he makes (ie an assault weapons ban is not going to do a lot).

However there are points to be made that even Republicans have said on Morgan's show that will make a huge difference. Such as closing the gun-show/private sales loophole which accounts for 40% of all US gun sales and of that 40% I bet there are many people inadvertently sell guns to criminals.

Follow the Swiss model where you have to have a license or a background check to buy a gun and you have to report a private sale and failing to do so is a crime. Also get a plan together on how to identify mentally ill people and treat them, not only will this help in getting guns out of people in the wrong hands but it will also help the economy by getting mentally ill people back into functioning in society thus increasing productivity.

The reason that the NRA opposes closing the gun-show loophole is that the gun manufacturers who fund them won't be able to sell as much as demand will fall if people feel more secure that those buying guns are law-abiding.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6787 posts, RR: 34
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 16 hours ago) and read 3868 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 1):
What he said is spot on and if your're familiar with Milwaukee, particularly the northwest side of town you would fully understand where he is coming from.

Exactly...and you know the situation is bad when even the leftist MKE Journal-Sentinal editorial board supports DC's initiative!!!

Piers Morgan is a wanker who is trying to prop up his lowest rated cable news show by being as bombastic and heinously leftist as he can. And after he tried to bully Ben Shapiro with his "brandishing your little book" comment referring to the US Constitution, I would hope CNN aborts his ass and we deport his limey ass.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 3901 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 22):
Just as I thought. You didn't continue reading what I post.

I have, several times. Again, all you say is that you don't like the guy. Please quote the specific part where you make a legitimate legal argument, because I'm clearly not seeing it.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 22):
Sheriff David Clarke doesn't need to prove jack$h!t to Piers Morgan. I think it's hilarious how you state; "in front of Piers Morgan.
He isn't any sort of authority.

Your words, not mine. I'm saying that bringing up the issue in front of Piers Morgan isn't productive and he's just going to push his not-so-hidden agenda. I'm not sure how you can disagree with that.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 22):
I haven't found Mr. Wilder's to say anything hateful but that isn't the main point of this thread.

Seriously?! Wilders even uses the word "hate" in his own speeches. Not even he denies that he hates certain groups.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 22):
The mayor had an opportunity to discuss that but he didn't.

I don't think anybody had a real expectation for the mayor to bring up the issue. He doesn't want to give more money to the police force. The onus is on the sheriff to raise the issue and support it. Otherwise he won't get an extra penny.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 22):
Local governments can't print more cash.

No, but they can more effectively appropriate the funds that they do have. Every government at every level has waste. The sheriff would be wise to show where that waste is and prove that it is better spent making the community safer.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineWildcatYXU From Canada, joined May 2006, 2598 posts, RR: 5
Reply 26, posted (1 year 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 3886 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 17):
Can you explain?
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 18):
Can you back that statement up?

Sure. Naturalized Canadians, such as myself, can be stripped of Canadian citizenship. There is no word about it in the constitution, but the current law allows it.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39704 posts, RR: 75
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 3916 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):
I have, several times



No you have not. You're still hung up on my first response. You haven't read the rest.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):
I'm saying that bringing up the issue in front of Piers Morgan isn't productive


The Sheriff has no say on how much money is funded to his department. He can only make request.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):
agenda.


Agenda? He now has an agenda?
Wow!

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):
He doesn't want to give more money to the police force.


No. They don't have the money and the mayor or country supervisors would appropriate the funds if they were there. As I said before, state & local governments across the country are having budget issues and they dealing with it the best way they can.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 3904 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 12):
I'm sure the British would not take to kindly of an American on your TV networks bad-mouthing your people.

You know many brits? I thought we were well known for taking the loss out of ourselves.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 12):
A wise British man told me that the proper term to describe Piers Morgan is "wanker".

Lol, does it make me wise if I think he's a banker?

Fred


User currently offlinebongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3535 posts, RR: 3
Reply 29, posted (1 year 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 3897 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 1):
Quoting IllinoisMan (Thread starter):I DO NOT like Piers Morgan.
No one does and it's time to deport his arse!
Join the petition to have him deported. He isn't a good representative of his home country either.

Please, please don't send him back, we are quite happy without him. He's an odious specimen

Quoting Superfly (Reply 12):
I'm sure the British would not take to kindly of an American on your TV networks bad-mouthing your people. It's not just Piers Morgan's views, but his downright insulting of the American people as a whole

This one I do have a problem with, the assumption that he's insulting the whole of the American people, my wife's US relatives are all exceedingly anti gun.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12345 posts, RR: 25
Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 months 14 hours ago) and read 3888 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 10):
Piers Morgan is a complete primadonna and an utter side show clown
Quoting Geezer (Reply 20):
As far as this douche-bag Morgan is concerned.....
Quoting slider (Reply 24):
Piers Morgan is a wanker

I guess all of you are having a hard time ignoring him?

Quoting Geezer (Reply 20):
I have news for you.............there are a hell of a lot of people who AREN"T ignoring Beck; why do you suppose he's making millions a year ? He was "cleaning up" while he was on FN; now he's tripled that !

He's preaching to the choir, the hard core conservatives. He's not reaching anyone else, which might actually help his cause. As you point out he's enriching himself, which is of course a very significant thing to conservatives. Maybe he'll end up like Karl Rove and direct a lot of the right wing echo chamber's money into another losing cause then spend months trying to not get blamed while they try to figure out why they lost.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39704 posts, RR: 75
Reply 31, posted (1 year 6 months 14 hours ago) and read 3889 times:

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 29):
Please, please don't send him back, we are quite happy without him. He's an odious specimen



Haha!  
Agreed!
I don't think anyone would take him.

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 29):
the assumption that he's insulting the whole of the American people


Actually he has and it's not just because of his anti-2nd. Amendment stance. You said it best, he's an odious specimen.
No point in going through the layers and layers of his ugliness. The guy just simply sucks and people on both sides of the Atlantic seem to agree.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8461 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (1 year 6 months 14 hours ago) and read 3873 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 24):
Piers Morgan is a wanker who is trying to prop up his lowest rated cable news show by being as bombastic and heinously leftist as he can. And after he tried to bully Ben Shapiro with his "brandishing your little book" comment referring to the US Constitution, I would hope CNN aborts his ass and we deport his limey ass.

Great conservative logic, when you disagree with someone, shut them out, deport their ass and call them limey. You in the right have been accusing liberals of this for many years.



"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 33, posted (1 year 6 months 14 hours ago) and read 3837 times:

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 26):
Naturalized Canadians, such as myself, can be stripped of Canadian citizenship.

I'm not familiar with any law that allows this...but surely you would have to do something really stupid in order for this to happen?

But so long as you maintain your Canadian citizenship, the Constitution and the Charter apply to you.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 27):
Agenda? He now has an agenda?
Wow!

You don't agree that Morgan has had an obvious agenda since the second he got that show?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 27):
You haven't read the rest.

I have, but if you don't want to elaborate then that's fine.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 30):
He's preaching to the choir, the hard core conservatives. He's not reaching anyone else

Very true. I don't think he's growing his fan club, he's just saying the right things to the people who have been listening all along.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 34, posted (1 year 6 months 14 hours ago) and read 3830 times:

I don't think anyone would disagree with the concept that PM is a POS self-aggrandizer. As well, he has something to answer for, perhaps in court, in the UK regarding the NOTW phone-hacking scandal. But that is separate from what is being 'discussed' here.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 1):
No one does and it's time to deport his arse!
Join the petition to have him deported. He isn't a good representative of his home country either.
Piers Morgan has had his arse handed to him multiple times by his guest - most recently Newt Gingrich.

If I have it right, 1st amendment trumps pretty much everything. If I am a legal resident of the US, or a citizen, I can get up on a soap box and shout that America is the biggest hegemonic power in the world and is a threat to everyone (a viewpoint supported by many, many millions of people, btw). But no law has been broken, therefore no basis for removal. The government may decide on a security basis to differ, but I believe they still have to demonstrate that through a legal process.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 8):
You can't have a police officer standing in front of everyone's house.

Only in a paranoid dream would someone believe that to be necessary.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 12):
Sure I support free speech but I have the right to say that he needs to get the f--k out!

No one is throwing stones here. Where did fr8mech say that the US kicked out people for what they said.
[/quote]

You appear to support speech that agrees with your ideology. As for fr8mech's point, I believe it to be incorrect, as is your interpretation. The US did not kick out Mandel, he was denied entry. A totally different legal situation. Canada has done the same thing, rarely.

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 26):
Sure. Naturalized Canadians, such as myself, can be stripped of Canadian citizenship. There is no word about it in the constitution, but the current law allows it.

An incorrect interpretation of the Constitution. As long as you are legally a Canadian citizen, you have the same rights and privileges, obligations, and legal protections as a naturally-born Canadian. As a naturalised citizen, you can be legally stripped of citizenship for several possible reasons: lying or concealing relevant information on your landed immigrant or citizenship application (criminal record being a big one); membership in a banned 'terrorist organisation' - whatever that means. Personally, I consider the Conservative Party to be a terrorist organisation, considering the damage being done to the country.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 27):
Agenda? He now has an agenda?
Wow!

And you don't, one supposes.

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 32):
Piers Morgan is a wanker who is trying to prop up his lowest rated cable news show by being as bombastic and heinously leftist as he can.

Being a 'leftist' is by definition heinous ? What a wonderful concept of democracy that is. Of course, the Hon. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn) recently wanted ALL House Dems investigated for 'un-American activities'. But I suppose in FOX Newsland, that is completely OK.

The GOP House members routinely accuse the House Dems of being 'left-wingers'. In Canada, US House Dems would mostly be comfortable in our Conservative Party. Many in the GOP would be classified as fascist.

Keep drinking the Kool-aid, y'all.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinemke717spotter From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2443 posts, RR: 5
Reply 35, posted (1 year 6 months 13 hours ago) and read 3797 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 8):
Mayor Tom Barrett sound clueless and seemed to be caught up in who's role different department's in government serves. He couldn't relate to any of the real life experiences the police officers deal with on a daily basis or the people that live in high crime areas. Typical of an elitist gun grabbing snob.


Milwaukee's image will never be enhanced under a "leader" like Barrett. He carries the stench of a political hack everywhere he goes. He refuses to tackle any of the serious issues that affect the central city, and outwardly clashes with law enforcement on a regular basis - which only encourages the less than desirable elements in the area. In nine years he has accomplished practically nothing, but occasionally comes back to life to ride the anti-gun coattails of New York Mayor Bloomberg.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 11):
Piers Morgan is a complete primadonna and an utter side show clown.


His stupidity knows no bounds. He asks Clark how many people have protected themselves using a gun, yet since when does a police force keep track of such a statistic? I knew what a joke this whole thing was as soon as Morgan led off with his most important point...that being the tone of the sheriff's voice.



Will you watch the Cleveland Browns and the Detroit Lions on Sunday? Only if coach Eric Mangini resigned after a loss.
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6787 posts, RR: 34
Reply 36, posted (1 year 6 months 12 hours ago) and read 3791 times:

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 32):
Great conservative logic, when you disagree with someone, shut them out, deport their ass and call them limey. You in the right have been accusing liberals of this for many years.

I've decided to start playing by the lefties' rules.  

Actually, truth be told, whilst I despise Morgan and especially what he stands for, I want the looney to remain here and keep his show. I figure he's the perfect example of the sheer lunacy that is taking our country into the shitter and the gross illogic of his entire premise on guns....we should be putting him out there as an example of leftist statist attitudes.


User currently offlinejpetekyxmd80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4382 posts, RR: 27
Reply 37, posted (1 year 6 months 12 hours ago) and read 3793 times:

Sure Piers can be a pompous arse, but i've come to like him quite a bit. I applaud him for having the balls to take on this issue with such vigor.   


The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6787 posts, RR: 34
Reply 38, posted (1 year 6 months 12 hours ago) and read 3783 times:

And back on topic of the actual words of David Clarke, let's take a step back and think about this.

How far gone are we, as a society, when there is outrage (faux or otherwise) when people are encouraged to actually take an active role in their own security, safety and protection?

How outlandish is this?

We have a faltering economy (now shrinking, I might add, after the reports today), still have high unemployment, a corrupt oligarchy that deliberately betrays its people and spends us into oblivion, and yet it is the discussion of a MOOT already-guaranteed Constitutional right that is sucking the air out of the room.

Beam me up.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5359 posts, RR: 14
Reply 39, posted (1 year 6 months 12 hours ago) and read 3755 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 38):
How far gone are we, as a society, when there is outrage (faux or otherwise) when people are encouraged to actually take an active role in their own security, safety and protection?

Exactly. All this guy is saying is that we have to take responsibility for our own safety and he is challenged for it.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 40, posted (1 year 6 months 11 hours ago) and read 3716 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 38):
How far gone are we, as a society, when there is outrage (faux or otherwise) when people are encouraged to actually take an active role in their own security, safety and protection?

In what other civilized country do the police come out and say "look, we're not really able to do our job anymore, so you're going to have to pick up the slack"?

That would seem to be a problem. Yet apparently certain jurisdictions in the US have adopted that line of reasoning as a matter of policy.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12345 posts, RR: 25
Reply 41, posted (1 year 6 months 10 hours ago) and read 3708 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 38):
How far gone are we, as a society, when there is outrage (faux or otherwise) when people are encouraged to actually take an active role in their own security, safety and protection?

So in your world view there are these set of private citizens who have certification in security and self protection who undergo periodic re certification to make sure their skills have not eroded, who only have a reasonable set of weapons appropriate for the self-defense task, and who have and use the robust facilities to safely store their weapons and prevent them from theft and/or abuse?

In my world, the only ones who come close to that standard are mostly not private citizens, they are the police.

Evidence shows that most firearms owned by individuals in the US are far more likely to kill people in their own household or of their own acquaintance than any thief, rapist or home invader. It also shows that people hardly ever train to any degree of proficiency with their weapons, and if they do it's not to any known standard but instead one of their own invention, if any, and tend to have far more weapons needed for self or family defense.

Quoting slider (Reply 38):
and yet it is the discussion of a MOOT already-guaranteed Constitutional right that is sucking the air out of the room

Indeed, there's not much to be discussed:

Quote:
In its 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the Supreme Court upheld a limited Second Amendment right to gun ownership.

Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, explained: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."

Justice Scalia also explained that, consistent with the Second Amendment, individual ownership of "dangerous and unusual" firearms, such as M-16 rifles, can be banned.

So there's plenty of latitude to impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms, such as insisting on a uniform background check and insisting on registering the transfer of the weapon.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8461 posts, RR: 1
Reply 42, posted (1 year 6 months 10 hours ago) and read 3696 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 36):
. I figure he's the perfect example of the sheer lunacy that is taking our country into the shitter and the gross illogic of his entire premise on guns....we should be putting him out there as an example of leftist statist attitudes.

I rather be a leftists statist that a member of the blood curdling NRA who cares more about bushmasters than cares about the people who are killed by assault riffles and big ass clips that they love to represent. If you need an AR-15 to protect your house you're crazy. Do these gun nuts need to kill a bunch of people and create an insurrection against your country or fight off a police force or the US Army? Assault riffles are for the battlefield and civil shooting ranges not for hunting or protection unless you want to fight off the government ala Waco and Ruby Ridge.

[Edited 2013-01-30 16:37:48]

[Edited 2013-01-30 16:43:21]


"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5359 posts, RR: 14
Reply 43, posted (1 year 6 months 7 hours ago) and read 3625 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 40):

In what other civilized country do the police come out and say "look, we're not really able to do our job anymore, so you're going to have to pick up the slack"?

What he's saying, is what has always been the case, in any civilized country:

The police can not be everywhere. The police can not protect you in every circumstance. You must take some responsibility for your own safety.

That is true everywhere. He chooses to admit it to the people he serves.

Quoting Mir (Reply 40):
That would seem to be a problem. Yet apparently certain jurisdictions in the US have adopted that line of reasoning as a matter of policy.

It's not a matter of policy, it's a matter of law. The police have no duty to protect anyone, except in very narrow circumstances.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/m...arch&article_id=341&issue_id=72004+

Edit: didn't realize the article's references weren't hyperlinked. Below is the link to a Wiki article and FindLaw on Gonzalez v. City of Castle Rock. My understanding is that this ruling basically spells out that the state (police) are not responsible to ensure your safety. There are other cases referenced in the Police Chief Magazine article that reinforce the premise.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1343430.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

[Edited 2013-01-30 19:03:28]

[Edited 2013-01-30 19:07:20]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinebristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 6 months 7 hours ago) and read 3613 times:

The government has already said that they can't won't deport Piers Morgan. I think he's very hatable but many people only hate him because of his stance against guns.


Fortune favours the brave
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 45, posted (1 year 6 months 6 hours ago) and read 3587 times:

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 37):
Sure Piers can be a pompous arse, but i've come to like him quite a bit. I applaud him for having the balls to take on this issue with such vigor.   

He challenges the people that he interviews which is something Larry King didn't do. It makes him very entertaining to me personally, I would have liked him to interview Lance Armstrong instead of Oprah.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 46, posted (1 year 6 months 3 hours ago) and read 3537 times:

So, Piers Morgan presents the other side of the FOX debate on guns so he is hated? I don't get it. The FOX crowd always crys about how we need to have debate in this country but when they are confronted with their own tactics from the other extreme, the FOX crowd feels like victims and need to shut debate down because of "liberal bias" or some BS. In other words: it only works in their favor and no one else's. Interesting.


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39704 posts, RR: 75
Reply 47, posted (1 year 6 months 3 hours ago) and read 3536 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 33):
You don't agree that Morgan has had an obvious agenda since the second he got that show?


I thought you were talking about Sheriff Dave Clarke.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 33):
if you don't want to elaborate then that's fine.


I already did twice but I want you to be able to read further and not freak out oer one sentence that you don't agree with.

Quoting mke717spotter (Reply 35):
Milwaukee's image will never be enhanced under a "leader" like Barrett. He carries the stench of a political hack everywhere he goes. He refuses to tackle any of the serious issues that affect the central city, and outwardly clashes with law enforcement on a regular basis - which only encourages the less than desirable elements in the area. In nine years he has accomplished practically nothing, but occasionally comes back to life to ride the anti-gun coattails of New York Mayor Bloomberg.


Well said. I was a bit surprised that he lost the re-call election against governor Scott Walker but I'm glad he lost.

Quoting Mir (Reply 40):
In what other civilized country


Who said we're civilized and why do you feel it's necessary to compare to other countries. I have yet to find a Utopian nation to set that example.

Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 44):
many people only hate him because of his stance against guns.


There are many people I like that I don't agree with on guns. People don't like him because he is an arrogant POS that just so happens to like to berate the US on US soil. People don't like it and have a right to gripe about it.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 34):
I can get up on a soap box and shout that America is the biggest hegemonic power in the world and is a threat to everyone (a viewpoint supported by many, many millions of people, btw).


You've done it before so continue doing it. That viewpoint is held by many terrorist and those in backwater 3rd world nations and clueless, spoiled left-wing Westerners. I understand many of you are simply jealous. I've come across your type on occasion.

Quoting slider (Reply 38):
And back on topic of the actual words of David Clarke, let's take a step back and think about this.

How far gone are we, as a society, when there is outrage (faux or otherwise) when people are encouraged to actually take an active role in their own security, safety and protection?

How outlandish is this?


It's not outlandish at all but it goes against the agenda of One World government advocates. The government wants more and more control over the people. When the economy fully collapses, many will wish they had guns to defend themselves and protect their property.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5359 posts, RR: 14
Reply 48, posted (1 year 6 months 2 hours ago) and read 3523 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 46):
So, Piers Morgan presents the other side of the FOX debate on guns so he is hated? I don't get it.


He's not hated because of his position on guns. He's hated because he's a pompous ass that has spent the last month attacking the gun owners, the US and the Constitution and anyone that disagrees with him.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3035 posts, RR: 1
Reply 49, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3476 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 8):
Makes sense to me. That's why we have guns.
You can't have a police officer standing in front of everyone's house. You have to take some responsibility to protect yourself. It's the same as having an emergency back up supplies of food, water & batteries in case of an earthquake, hurricane or other natural disasters. FEMA will not be able to come to your aid immediately.
It's the same has having your fire extinguisher and/or garden hose to help put out a fire in your house until the fire department arrives.

For me, a more accurate analogy for using a gun to protect until the police arrive is having high-powered hoses installed or industrial grade fire extinguishers to fight fires, while waiting for fire brigade (not the best examples), which if not trained correctly, can cause much more harm to property/lives than good. The in-home security equivilant of emergency food supplies and a home fire extinguisher, would be having a good alarm system, having doors and windows locked or even double locked, and having a room inside which can be locked until police come.

There are so many other measures that do a much better job in protecting families than firearms. In individual cases, a firearm may save your family, but looking in the big picture, statistically, other measures including making sure your neighbour doesn't have a firearm prove better.

As for Piers Morgan, not a fan, but that began a long time before his anti-gun campaign.

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39704 posts, RR: 75
Reply 50, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3466 times:

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 49):
which if not trained correctly, can cause much more harm to property/lives than good.


.....and if you listened to the commercial, Sheriff Clarke said exactly that.

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 49):
would be having a good alarm system,


Well of course. That is obvious.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 51, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3458 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I suppose when someone invades your home its a feeling of shoot or be shot? A kind of natural human reaction I suppose.

People who invade homes of course are not human so when confronted with an opposing gun it makes no difference to the situation and the feeling of shoot or be shot will not be with them.

After all the only thing that beets a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. What beats a good guy with a gun? (as surely this is how a criminal who invades your home will think).

Interesting as surely the knowledge that there is a good chance that the homeowner having a gun makes the person invading the home more likely to have a gun bringing the shoot or be shot thing right back. Seems like owning a gun would make you more likely to be shot? Maybe that's why the statistics on gun deaths in the the US are the way they are.

Maybe after a while all the folks with guns will have shot each other and the post 18th century people can get back on with their lives.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Really? if you can throw a bullet at 600mph anyway. Lock a gun in a cabinet and it won't kill anyone. So yes guns don't kill people.
Guns don't kill people, people with guns can kill people, that's maybe how it should read, as the gun is an integral part of having a bullet passing through your body (of course if you can name another way that can happen then please any of you shout it out).

Fred

P.S. I'm sure non of the "no gun control" advocates will comment on any of this because of the impenetrable walls of the right wing brains echo chamber.

P.P.S. Piers morgan is a Self-agrandising tool, please don't deport him. He'll only come back here.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39704 posts, RR: 75
Reply 52, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3445 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 51):



Cute but what about all of those that own firearms illegally and are criminals that belong to street gangs and/or drug dealers? They cause the majority of gun deaths. For some odd reason, the recent gun control discussion only seems to be focusing on those who are legal gun owners that don't go out shooting people or intimidating people with their guns.
By the way, it's not just "right wingers" that support gun rights. President Obama doesn't have enough Democrats in the Senate to go along with new gun control laws. Not all Democrats are are urban, Europe-loving faux-intellectuals that want to ban guns.

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 49):
but looking in the big picture, statistically



Criminals such as robbers, rapist and other crooks don't look at the "big picture".

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 51):
the impenetrable walls of the right wing brains echo chamber.


Statements like that sound JUST LIKE Piers Morgan. Are you related?



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 53, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3441 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 47):
You've done it before so continue doing it. That viewpoint is held by many terrorist and those in backwater 3rd world nations and clueless, spoiled left-wing Westerners. I understand many of you are simply jealous. I've come across your type on occasion.

Interesting. Can you offer an example, or are you just blowing smoke ? I can fairly criticize America on a number of issues, but that doesn't make me anti-American. Of course, your next statement is the usual disingenuous claptrap uttered by many on the right, esp. Teabaggers, who wish to equate criticism of the US with terrorism, which any sensible person would understand is BS.

Clueless ? Hmmm. With an advanced degree in nuclear physics, a BA in management, 4 years running a golf course (in addition to my day job), pilot's license (with glider endorsement), I hardly think so.

Jealous ? Hardly, with all the riches and freedoms (particularly from guns) with which my country vests me.

I didn't know I was a "type".....considering the source, what an honour.   



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinebongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3535 posts, RR: 3
Reply 54, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3434 times:

To all you US citizens out there, Piers Moron's attitude is nothing personal to you, he's just a beligerent rectum, who has made a career out of feuding with people

Two of his longest running feuds are with the Top Gear Presenter Jeremy Clarkson who kindly re arranged Pier's face for him in a brawl, and Ian Hislop a tv news quiz team capatian and editor of the satirical magazine Private Eye, it was Hislop who initially used the name "Piers Moron" and has gone on to use it in print at every available opportunity for at least 10 years, few editions of the fortnightly Private Eye pass without a reference somewhere to "Piers Moron"
He was sacked as editor of the Daily Mirro newspaper for publishing some fake photos showing UK troops abusing Iraqi prisoners, the problem was that the photos were actually taken at an Army barracks in Northern England.

Please, please keep him, but can you get your media to regularly insult him, and give him a good slapping occasionally, as used to happen here.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 55, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3436 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 48):
has spent the last month attacking the gun owners, the US and the Constitution and anyone that disagrees with him.

The idea that it is an attack on US and the Constitution to want responsible gun owners, i.e. gun control, is preposterous.

It is high time for the "pro gun" side to start taking responsibility. To stop hiding behind claims about un-American and protected by the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that free you from responsibility. Scalia made it clear in the District of Columbia v. Heller decision case "pro gun" is using as justification, quote provided by Revelation above.

It is time that gun owners, as a group, take responsibility to stop providing guns to criminals. It is time for "pro gun", still as a group, to take responsibility for all the accidents happening because they do not show the respect needed when you have guns.

You do not have a Constitutional right to be irresponsible.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 56, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3421 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 43):
The police can not be everywhere. The police can not protect you in every circumstance. You must take some responsibility for your own safety.

That's always been understood to be the case. But when you have the police saying that budget cuts are affecting their ability to do their job, and their solution is to get the public to do more of their job for them instead of trying to restore their abilities either through more funding or better management, that's a problem.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1859 posts, RR: 2
Reply 57, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3422 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

How do you pull a gun on someone that has a gun pointed at you?


The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12345 posts, RR: 25
Reply 58, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3412 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 43):
The police can not be everywhere. The police can not protect you in every circumstance. You must take some responsibility for your own safety.

The military can't be everywhere either and cannot protect me in every circumstance, therefore I shall acquire a nuclear tipped artillery shells and a battery of artillery weapons to fend off invaders....



Ahh, safe at last!



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7067 posts, RR: 8
Reply 59, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3401 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):
He doesn't want to give more money to the police force. The onus is on the sheriff to raise the issue and support it. Otherwise he won't get an extra penny.

Well if that state is like many others, he may as well resign and run for his bosses job, his boss is cutting his budget, you are advocating that the employee cease being a team player and go out in public and mouth-off, demonstrate, agitate or do acts that undermines the credibility of his boss, that is the quickest way to be out of a job as well as loose the support of the very population you are trying to protect and serve.
Funding is the responsibility of the mayor, that's where it should remain.


User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6787 posts, RR: 34
Reply 60, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3379 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 40):
In what other civilized country do the police come out and say "look, we're not really able to do our job anymore, so you're going to have to pick up the slack"?

That would seem to be a problem. Yet apparently certain jurisdictions in the US have adopted that line of reasoning as a matter of policy.

Already been addressed, but if you want to put all your trust in the police, go for it.

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 42):
I rather be a leftists statist that a member of the blood curdling NRA who cares more about bushmasters than cares about the people who are killed by assault riffles and big ass clips that they love to represent. If you need an AR-15 to protect your house you're crazy. Do these gun nuts need to kill a bunch of people and create an insurrection against your country or fight off a police force or the US Army? Assault riffles are for the battlefield and civil shooting ranges not for hunting or protection unless you want to fight off the government ala Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Well, by the tone and content of this response, I'd say you miss the point of the Second Amendment entirely. You defeat your entire point by invoking Waco and Ruby Ridge---that's exactly WHY we have the right to bear arms...and those events, and scores others, exemplify what unchecked government power is about.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 43):
That is true everywhere. He chooses to admit it to the people he serves.

Exactly right. I thought it was a no-brainer--it should be really a non-controversial statement, but I applaud Clarke's courage to actually give voice to it.

Quoting cmf (Reply 55):
It is high time for the "pro gun" side to start taking responsibility. To stop hiding behind claims about un-American and protected by the Constitution.

I think you're WAY off base here. The "pro-gun" crowd LEADS the way in instruction, proper handgun usage, CCW classes, firearms lessons for women, self-defense stuff, hunter's safety, you name it. The gun "industry" if you want to call it that does so because it's in their very interest to preserve what they have--I don't blame them one bit, it's the right thing to do.

My wife took a handgun class and had NEVER fired a weapon before in her LIFE. Comes from a very left-leaning anti-gun family and her opinions were borne of ignorance more than anything. Now she gets it. And that's exactly why we have those education outlets.

Here's a perfect REAL LIFE example. Let’s cite this story—which will undoubtedly be summarily ignored by the MSM.

http://michaelberry.iheart.com/pages/article1302013.html

Quote:
Houston - Cayden, a six-year-old Houston boy with Down syndrome, was falling asleep next to his mother at 8:15 pm on the night of Friday, January 25. It is their nightly ritual to lay in his bed until Cayden falls asleep before his mother finishes her housework, while her husband works the nightshift at a veterinary clinic. But this night turned out to be anything but typical.

A loud crash came through the living room window, followed by three Hispanic men rushing into the house. Erin (her real first name but she asked that her last name not be used) covered her son's face so he wouldn't watch, and ran to release her caged dogs and grab her weapon. She reached the dogs, but not the gun, before the armed men stopped her.

They demanded money. She didn't have any and feared they wanted more. She led them into her bedroom, where her gun was hidden. Her fears turned to horror as one of the three masked men pulled out a package of duct tape and began peeling the plastic off, while another produced a knife and the third wielded a gun.

Praying something would distract them so she could get to her pistol, the dogs walked into the room and the men looked away. Erin seized on the distraction to grab her gun. She turned and shot one of the intruders in the stomach. The wounded man and one of his accomplices fled through an open window, while the third man ran for a closet.

Erin held her gun on the man in the closet, but he managed to grab it and a struggle ensued. The robber managed to flee the house with her weapon.
Houston's Local 2 KPRC reports "The Montgomery County Sheriff's Office said Adrian Granados-Yepez, 27, of Tomball, was arrested at Memorial Hermann Hospital Monday night, where he was being treated for a gunshot wound" after arriving by Life Flight.
Sources tell The Michael Berry Show the three intruders are illegal aliens.


User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 61, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3378 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 52):
Cute but what about all of those that own firearms illegally

Thats just the point, they own them legally, they aren't breaking any laws by owning a gun.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 52):
They cause the majority of gun deaths.

The proposals of gun controls would reduce these, this is what I would like to see.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 52):
For some odd reason, the recent gun control discussion only seems to be focusing on those who are legal gun owners that don't go out shooting people or intimidating people with their guns.

I for one believe that 99.99% of people (probably more) are completely safe with their guns but with gun ownership so high it doesn't take a high percentage to make things horrific. The problem with the "I am completely safe with guns so I don't want to register mine" crowd is that in a modern society everyone has to be treated equally and abide by the same laws whether they are a hassle to you or not. I have never broken a traffic law in my life, should that give me reason to not have my car registered? or that because I grew up driving on my parents farm before I was of legal age to drive on the road that I should somehow be exempt from having to take the relevant driving tests?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 52):
Statements like that sound JUST LIKE Piers Morgan. Are you related?

You are right, sorry Iwas winding myself up. 

Fred


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39704 posts, RR: 75
Reply 62, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3371 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 53):
With an advanced degree in nuclear physics, a BA in management, 4 years running a golf course (in addition to my day job), pilot's license (with glider endorsement), I hardly think so.



...and this is the best you can do?   

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 53):
claptrap uttered by many on the right, esp. Teabaggers, who wish to equate criticism of the US with terrorism



Looks like I've got under your skin. Regardless of what your resume states, you're still clueless on this very topic. You think if we take away guns that crime will just magically go away and we would be perfect like Canada.....
Just like Piers Morgan, you resort to childish insults against those that don't agree with you.
If making personal insults make you feel better, carry on.

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 54):
Jeremy Clarkson who kindly re arranged Pier's face for him in a brawl


I have a new-found respect for Jeremy Clarkson (even though I think he's a d--k also).

Quoting par13del (Reply 59):
Funding is the responsibility of the mayor, that's where it should remain.


  
...and in that discussion, Piers Morgan never address the mayor on the funding of the sheriff's department even though he kept talking about who's responsible for various roles. It was lack of funding that prompt the sheriff to make this commercial in the first place.

[Edited 2013-01-31 08:38:02]


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12345 posts, RR: 25
Reply 63, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3367 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 60):
Already been addressed, but if you want to put all your trust in the police, go for it.

How many other things would you have us take the burden of? In addition to self-defense, should I test my own water for impurities? Test everything I eat for bacteria? Check packages for bombs? Test every plane/train/auto I ever travel in? The point being that if we all had to do everything for ourselves, society would fall on its face. We'd all be too busy doing the simple things that we'd never get to anything complex, and society would never advance.

Quoting slider (Reply 60):
You defeat your entire point by invoking Waco and Ruby Ridge---that's exactly WHY we have the right to bear arms..

No, that's why YOU think the right exists.

Quoting slider (Reply 60):
The "pro-gun" crowd LEADS the way in instruction, proper handgun usage, CCW classes, firearms lessons for women, self-defense stuff, hunter's safety, you name it.

They do, but all of that stuff is OPTIONAL, which is a big problem IMHO.

Quoting slider (Reply 60):
The gun "industry" if you want to call it that does so because it's in their very interest to preserve what they have--I don't blame them one bit, it's the right thing to do.

It's in their interest to sell as many guns as possible, PERIOD. It's in their interest for criminals to have guns so that non-criminals have a fear of the criminals and decide they too need to own guns.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 61):
I for one believe that 99.99% of people (probably more) are completely safe with their guns

99% *completely* safe? I doubt it...



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 64, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3361 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 63):
99% *completely* safe? I doubt it...

Agree, should be changed to "are vigilant enough, have enough sense and appreciate the danger and responsibility, are sane enough and are lucky enough to not have and accident."

Fred


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 65, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3369 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 60):
I think you're WAY off base here. The "pro-gun" crowd LEADS the way in instruction, proper handgun usage, CCW classes, firearms lessons for women, self-defense stuff, hunter's safety, you name it. The gun "industry" if you want to call it that does so because it's in their very interest to preserve what they have--I don't blame them one bit, it's the right thing to do.

My wife took a handgun class and had NEVER fired a weapon before in her LIFE. Comes from a very left-leaning anti-gun family and her opinions were borne of ignorance more than anything. Now she gets it. And that's exactly why we have those education outlets.

Here's a perfect REAL LIFE example. Let’s cite this story—which will undoubtedly be summarily ignored by the MSM.

I think YOU ARE WAY off base here. Apparently you are supposed to capitalize a lot when discussing guns and mentioning political leanings...

It is great there are training classes but the irresponsibility is expressed by that you can go from never having touched a gun to be "qualified" to carry a loaded weapon in public after just an 8 hour NRA class. Good part of it spent on theory. You are not proficient in handling a weapon after that. Same with tactics and probably legal knowledge is also very limited. At best you're ready to practice.

Irresponsibility is also expressed in selling to strangers without verifying they are qualified and buying for relatives and friends who are not qualified to buy by their own. Add poor storage and the most common methods of irrisponsibility is covered.

Then the obligatory left comment. Address the issue instead. This isn't about if your politics is left or right leaning. It is if gun owners are facing up to their responsibility. With thousands injured and killed in accidents each year and hundreds of thousands guns lost or stolen from law-abiding, good gun owners it is obvious that responsibility is lacking.

The example you gave isn't painting the full picture. You need to add stories like these:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57...rections-to-wrong-house-shot-dead/
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/19/us/nor...olina-gun-show-shooting/index.html
http://www.kait8.com/story/20757702/...investigated-as-a-hunting-accident
http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/T...opular-Firing-Range-187615901.html
http://www.stargazette.com/article/2...rn-gun-accident-into-safety-lesson
http://fox4kc.com/2013/01/14/12-year...old-mo-boy-killed-in-gun-accident/
http://www.thedailytimes.com/Local_N...rns-teens-shooting-death-id-032500
http://crime.blogs.news-journalonline.com/10276/take-your-guns-inside/
http://arnold.patch.com/articles/thr...reported-stolen-from-imperial-home
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...andguns-rounds-of-loose-ammunition
http://cumberlink.com/news/local/cri...a-6966-11e2-ae8d-0019bb2963f4.html


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 66, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3339 times:

WHich one is Jeremy Clarkson? stories like that makes me wish I had cable.

Also the ratings are in for Monday night.


Piers Morgan pulled in 545,000 viewers on Monday night at 9 PM.

Over on the Logo in the same time slot, channel RuPaul pulled in 565,000 viewers.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 67, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3319 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 48):
He's not hated because of his position on guns. He's hated because he's a pompous ass that has spent the last month attacking the gun owners, the US and the Constitution and anyone that disagrees with him.

No, it is actually both. I hear this said about every "lilberal" (read: anyone not on FOX or AM radio) talker. Anyone who suggests the United States do something about assault wepons is, according to the right, an enemy of the state who hates the Constitution and wants to take all our guns away. In other words assault weapons=all guns according to the right.

Quoting cmf (Reply 65):
With thousands injured and killed in accidents each year and hundreds of thousands guns lost or stolen from law-abiding, good gun owners it is obvious that responsibility is lacking.

And, according to LaPierre, that responsibility falls on those who steal the guns. Because the law abiding citizens who fail to keep their guns locked and secured are responsible. That is what I am reading.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12345 posts, RR: 25
Reply 68, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3324 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 66):
WHich one is Jeremy Clarkson?

I'd say "he's the moron" but that doesn't narrow it down any! 
Quoting L-188 (Reply 66):
Also the ratings are in for Monday night.

Piers Morgan pulled in 545,000 viewers on Monday night at 9 PM.

Over on the Logo in the same time slot, channel RuPaul pulled in 565,000 viewers.

Right, so it's not his popularity that is making the right wingers so upset....



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3623 posts, RR: 5
Reply 69, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3326 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 52):
They cause the majority of gun deaths.

I have a feeling that the American public does not really care about inner-city violence. A gang member killing another gang member is not what people are trying to stop. They are more focused on the teenager/psycho that manages to get their hands on legal weapons - owned or stored improperly by family members.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 70, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3298 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 62):
...and this is the best you can do?

And you're academic and practical quals are ????

Quoting Superfly (Reply 62):
Looks like I've got under your skin.

No, actually. But attitudes seemingly displayed in your and other gun-hugger posts apall me.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 62):
If making personal insults make you feel better, carry on.

And you don't....I see now.   

Quoting Superfly (Reply 62):
Regardless of what your resume states, you're still clueless on this very topic.

And of course that's not an insult. Guns don't make people safe. More Americans (far more, actually) die in their own homes from their own guns than from all the intruders put together.

Canada does have rather more gun control than the US. Result ? Last year IIRC about 90 gun-related homicides -- mostly it's knives or beatings. Scale it up by 10 to normalise for population you'd have about 900, versus around, I believe, 8,000 for the US. So the question is: with lax gun control, to paraphrase Clint, "Do you feel lucky ?"

Quoting Superfly (Reply 62):
You think if we take away guns that crime will just magically go away and we would be perfect like Canada.....

Apparently you can't grasp some things:
- never said take away guns, and
- never said Canada was perfect. In fact I have no hesitation at all in criticising my country.

Incorrect inferences on your part based on, IMHO, deep-seated issues.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 62):
Just like Piers Morgan, you resort to childish insults against those that don't agree with you.

Oh heavens no, I think he's a POS. As for childish, well, your profile, if accurate, indicates you are MUCH younger than me, so .... draw the appropriate conclusion buddy.   

Just to remove any lingering doubt in your mind, I am a proud card-carrying member of the Liberal Party of Canada. But I suppose you had already made that inference (this time correctly).

And whenever you come to Canada, don't bring your gun, legal or otherwise. Jail could await you.
  



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39704 posts, RR: 75
Reply 71, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3298 times:

Quoting lewis (Reply 69):
A gang member killing another gang member is not what people are trying to stop.



Many of them kill non-gang members and innocent bystanders get caught in the cross-fire. I've been held up at gun-point twice - once by some dope addict and another by a man demanding that I give him a ride. Both occasions happened late at night while stopping at a gas station. One of these wasn't in a rough inner-city either, just on the outskirts of town.
The dope addict had the gun to my chest. His dope pushed came from behind him and snatched the gun, picked him up and body slammed him to the ground. This was after leaving a Rush concert at the Forum in 1994 in Inglewood, CA - under the flight path to LAX.
The second time the man was acting a bit aggressive and asking that I give him a ride as I was filling my tank. I told him to just wait. (I wasn't going to let him in my car). Once he saw that I got in my car and started the engine without letting him in, he reached in to his pants and pulled out his gun. That is when I sped off, ducking my head low to avoid any bullets. Lucky he missed me but he did shoot rear left tire and I drove 5 miles on the rim until I got to a friend's house. I reported the crime but this gunman was never found.
Both occasions happened many years ago.



More needs to be done with how we treat mental health as well as drugs. Leave the legal gun owners alone.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 66):
Piers Morgan pulled in 545,000 viewers on Monday night at 9 PM.

Over on the Logo in the same time slot, channel RuPaul pulled in 565,000 viewers.



Is 545,000 high or low? Losing to RuPaul has got to be an embarrassment.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8792 posts, RR: 24
Reply 72, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3287 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 67):
Anyone who suggests the United States do something about assault weapons is, according to the right, an enemy of the state who hates the Constitution and wants to take all our guns away.

That's you saying it. We just say it's stupid. Assault-type weapons (can't call them assault weapons because they are not automatics) are involved in what, 1% of all gun-related deaths? Handguns are involved in the vast, vast majority. The whole assault weapons hate-fest is just a scapegoat.

How about doing something about the real reasons for most of these incidents - individuals who did not get what they wanted out of life, and feel wrongly denied what they are entitled to and want to make everyone suffer for it.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39704 posts, RR: 75
Reply 73, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3288 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 70):
And you're academic and practical quals are ????


Has nothing to do with the discussion. Nothing on your resume gives you any more credibility on this issue.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 70):
But attitudes seemingly displayed in your and other gun-hugger posts apall me.


Deal with it.
Me nor any other member is obligated to appease you. Welcome to the Internet.
It's expected that we respect other's opinion but it looks like respecting others is something you haven't learned.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 70):
IMHO, deep-seated issues.



Oh, so now I have "issues"?
This is getting ridiculous.  
Why are you upset at me again?
This is degrading in to a pissing match. I thought most outgrow this behavior once they get in to high school. What were you bragging about again in terms of academics?

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 70):
I think he's a POS.



Yet you use the same exact arguing techniques as him. Call him a POS all you want but you've taken a page right out of his style of debating.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 70):
As for childish, well, your profile, if accurate, indicates you are MUCH younger than me, so .... draw the appropriate conclusion buddy.


Yes I am a lot younger than you but reading your post makes me think you're a lot younger than me.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 70):
And whenever you come to Canada, don't bring your gun, legal or otherwise. Jail could await you.


Don't be silly. I follow the law of every country I visit and I've been to and even lived in your country. I don't need a lecture from you about following the law in Canada.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 74, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3250 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 73):
This is getting ridiculous.
Why are you upset at me again?
This is degrading in to a pissing match.

Agreed there is a ridiculous element here.  
And you're agreeing that you're pissing, then ?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 73):
Yet you use the same exact arguing techniques as him.

Hardly. I don't have the same accent for starters. And I don't call people in this thread "clueless".   



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 75, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3231 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 66):
WHich one is Jeremy Clarkson? stories like that makes me wish I had cable.

The tall one who like Morgan has a really big mouth.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 72):
That's you saying it. We just say it's stupid. Assault-type weapons (can't call them assault weapons because they are not automatics) are involved in what, 1% of all gun-related deaths? Handguns are involved in the vast, vast majority. The whole assault weapons hate-fest is just a scapegoat.

I tend to agree.

What is needed is to close the gun show loophole (should be called a private sales loophole) and if you do sell a gun to someone and that gun is used in a crime and traced back to you, that owner should be held liable. It it was stolen you should be reporting it so that covers that area where a legal gun owner may not be liable.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 72):
How about doing something about the real reasons for most of these incidents - individuals who did not get what they wanted out of life, and feel wrongly denied what they are entitled to and want to make everyone suffer for it.

Identify and treat those that are mentally ill.

Basically everyone at their point in life has things that they got that they didn't want but a mentally healthy person is not going to kill 20 6 year olds even if they have had a tough life.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 76, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3216 times:

Yeah,

Does moron translate in this case to, "The Middle One"?

I could see the old guy throwing a punch,



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinejpetekyxmd80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4382 posts, RR: 27
Reply 77, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3212 times:

http://www.nbc29.com/story/20719160/...lic-road-kroger-with-assault-rifle

How bout this guy now? SOOO glad that he has his 'rights', now what about the rest of us?



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 78, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3163 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 72):
That's you saying it. We just say it's stupid. Assault-type weapons (can't call them assault weapons because they are not automatics) are involved in what, 1% of all gun-related deaths? Handguns are involved in the vast, vast majority. The whole assault weapons hate-fest is just a scapegoat.

I agree handguns is the bigger problem but it is interesting put your 1% is stupid small comment in perspective.

There is no solid statistics about how often weapons are used for self defense. The low number seems to be in the 65k - 75k range and the high number 2.5M. The later is a number based on almost 20 year old data but pro gun is still promoting it as the valid number today. Interesting many of the numbers in that report disprove the 2.5M number. For example they state gun owners report 60% - 65% of the times they use a gun for self defense so when you combine it with reported number of crimes it doesn't add up.

Anyway, lets use the 2.5M number. It means less that 1% of weapons are used for self defense. Is that a stupid low number?

What about if we take the number of people killed in accidents, a bit over 500 per year, as percentage of total number of people killed, a bit over 10k. That is more than 4% of all gun deaths. More than 4 times the percentage of weapons used for self defense.

Of course comparing like this isn't statistically valid, but it is the way pro gun is using statistics.

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 77):
How bout this guy now? SOOO glad that he has his 'rights', now what about the rest of us?

A perfect demonstration of responsible use of the rights granted by the 2nd amendment...


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 79, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3141 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 71):
Quoting L-188 (Reply 66):
Piers Morgan pulled in 545,000 viewers on Monday night at 9 PM.

Over on the Logo in the same time slot, channel RuPaul pulled in 565,000 viewers.



Is 545,000 high or low? Losing to RuPaul has got to be an embarrassment.

I think Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow pulled in 1.5 and 1.2 million viewers respectively in the same slot.

Quoting cmf (Reply 78):
There is no solid statistics about how often weapons are used for self defense.

There are enough for a 1 page article in American Rifleman and American Hunter every month.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 80, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3091 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 52):
what about all of those that own firearms illegally and are criminals that belong to street gangs and/or drug dealers? They cause the majority of gun deaths.

People keep pointing to Chicago. Nestled between Wisconsin and Indiana. Two gun crazy states. But, according to NRA, there is no way at all that anyone could ever simply slip over to Milwaukee or Gary and buy a gun. Because that never happens, according to NRA.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 72):
Assault-type weapons (can't call them assault weapons because they are not automatics) are involved in what, 1% of all gun-related deaths?

Because NRA got rid of funding for any studies, we will never know.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 72):
How about doing something about the real reasons for most of these incidents - individuals who did not get what they wanted out of life, and feel wrongly denied what they are entitled to and want to make everyone suffer for it.

Like "if I can't have you, no one will" type things? Or, "that f##king bus driver cut me off!" type things? How many people who are on "entitlements" (that we all pay into, including those who are recieveing them) take out a schools' worth of children so "everyone" can suffer? Is that what happened at Sandy Hook? Or Aurora? Or Springfield? Or Columbine?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineqantas077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5850 posts, RR: 40
Reply 81, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3081 times:

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 77):

this story even made headlines down here in Australia. Pretty bloody irresponsible to walk in to a place full of women and children with a loaded rifle on your shoulder.

it could well have ended in a shoot out with fatalities.



a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 82, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3061 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 79):
There are enough for a 1 page article in American Rifleman and American Hunter every month.

LOL. That isn't statistics. It is feel good stories for those filled with fear or wanting to be heroes.

[Edited 2013-02-01 02:09:17]

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8792 posts, RR: 24
Reply 83, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3035 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 78):
It means less that 1% of weapons are used for self defense. Is that a stupid low number?
Quoting seb146 (Reply 80):
Because NRA got rid of funding for any studies, we will never know.

I give me a break. There are tons of studies and stats on the subject, Like here.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...les/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

At least the FBI is professional and tries to do its job. When I was researching this question, I came across the DOJ's data site, where there are huge treasure troves of data - some of it very recent - but they do not provide any indexes or even filenames - you just have to sift through it. Like here http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/sheets/htus8008.zip. It's really as if they don't want you to find anything.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 80):
Like "if I can't have you, no one will" type things? Or, "that f##king bus driver cut me off!" type things? How many people who are on "entitlements" (that we all pay into, including those who are recieveing them) take out a schools' worth of children so "everyone" can suffer? Is that what happened at Sandy Hook? Or Aurora? Or Springfield? Or Columbine?

Those incidents happened because you had someone "angry at the world". "The world mistreats me, so I'll get them back". People need to understand that life ain't fair, now suck it up and get to work.

I saw a commentary recently that showed how a vast majority of these mass-shooters were liberals - often quite radical liberals. The Virginia Tech shooter's hobby was sending hate mail to GWBush for example. I won't go any deeper now as to what that might tell us, but I thought it interesting.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 84, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3021 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 83):
People need to understand that life ain't fair, now suck it up and get to work.

The phrase "prised from my cold dead hands" comes to mind.

The state may make some of your guns illegal someday and take them from you, suck it up and get to work.

Fred


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 85, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3015 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 83):
I give me a break. There are tons of studies and stats on the subject, Like here.

You provide a list of weapons used for murder as statistics as "proof" of how often weapons are used for self defense... It is pretty much like looking at the wrong end of a gun. There are no breaks big enough to cover it.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 83):
I saw a commentary recently that showed how a vast majority of these mass-shooters were liberals - often quite radical liberals.

So that is why the TP crowed want people to have guns suited for mass murders. It is n extreme example of making liberal voters not eligible to vote.


User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1859 posts, RR: 2
Reply 86, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2989 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 83):
I give me a break. There are tons of studies and stats on the subject, Like here.

There are not tons of studies. There are crime stats, that's it. Federal law prohibits. Research and data compilation on gun related incidents.



The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5359 posts, RR: 14
Reply 87, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2982 times:

Quoting qantas077 (Reply 81):
it could well have ended in a shoot out with fatalities.

How exactly? Was he threatening anyone? Did he point it at anyone? Does carrying a gun automatically make you more unstable? Did he break any laws?

I guess this thread had no choice but to degenerate into a gun control debate.

On the bright side of things:

NRA-picks-Louisville-2016-national-convention" target="_blank">http://www.courier-journal.com/artic...ouisville-2016-national-convention

I may go to my first NRA convention. I'm liking the apocalyptic posts that are floating around FB concerning this announcement. Seems folks forget they were here back in 2008.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 84):
"prised from my cold dead hands"

I prefer "Molon Labe". It fits with my heritage.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6787 posts, RR: 34
Reply 88, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2982 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 65):
The example you gave isn't painting the full picture. You need to add stories like these:

If you're propping up your argument by just searching for tales of irresponsible gun owners and accidental shootings in an effort to eviscerate the Second Amendment, I'd say your logic is feeble.

Just because there are some boneheads doesn't take away from the liberty of 300M people. it's a specious argument and the continued strawman of the left to point to a school shooting, or accidental gun deaths, or whatever, and then extrapolate their illogic out to a foregone conclusion that guns are bad and should be more regulated.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39704 posts, RR: 75
Reply 89, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2976 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 80):
People keep pointing to Chicago.



????
Re-read my post #71. I never made any mention of Chicago.
I mentioned Inglewood, California. That is where I was held up. The other place was near San Bernardino.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12345 posts, RR: 25
Reply 90, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2953 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 88):

Just because there are some boneheads doesn't take away from the liberty of 300M people. it's a specious argument and the continued strawman of the left to point to a school shooting, or accidental gun deaths, or whatever, and then extrapolate their illogic out to a foregone conclusion that guns are bad and should be more regulated.

Keep in mind it's not all people that equate "liberty" to the 2nd amendment. The Constitution and its Amendments are a lot broader than that. As above, even with the Heller decision so loved by NRA types we find:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 41):
Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, explained: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.

I think a large part of the country is unhappy that the only concern around liberty that gets any attention seems to be that of the liberty of gun ownership.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7067 posts, RR: 8
Reply 91, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2936 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 80):
Because NRA got rid of funding for any studies, we will never know.

So we are relying on statistics and reports from the NRA to promote gun control?

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 86):
Federal law prohibits. Research and data compilation on gun related incidents.

Is there a consensus on whether this information exist and whether we should expect it from the NRA or the folks who have all the other information being used in the debate pro or con?


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 92, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2902 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 88):
If you're propping up your argument by just searching for tales of irresponsible gun owners and accidental shootings in an effort to eviscerate the Second Amendment, I'd say your logic is feeble.

But it is OK for proponents guns without responsibility to prop up their argument with a single feel good case....

Quoting slider (Reply 88):
Just because there are some boneheads doesn't take away from the liberty of 300M people. it's a specious argument and the continued strawman of the left to point to a school shooting, or accidental gun deaths, or whatever, and then extrapolate their illogic out to a foregone conclusion that guns are bad and should be more regulated.

Funny how you mention strawman and then go on to claim that the rights are taken away from 300 M people when a very good portion of those 300 M, a majority per most reports since Newtown, support an assault weapon ban...

And then the SOP fear mongering continues with claims about "left" concludes gus are bad and should be more regulated.

Reality is that there are insanely many accidents because gun owners do stupid mistakes and allegedly good gun owners and the gun industry make weapons easily available to criminals.

It is time for gun owners to take responsibility for what you do. The Constitution isn't a rights without responsibility free card.

Quoting par13del (Reply 91):
So we are relying on statistics and reports from the NRA to promote gun control?

LOL, they do not have conclusive statistics. They have successfully convinced enough politicians to make sure no such statistics is available.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 93, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2889 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 73):
Deal with it.
Me nor any other member is obligated to appease you. Welcome to the Internet.
It's expected that we respect other's opinion but it looks like respecting others is something you haven't learned.

I'll make it mercifully simple for you. The basic argument put forth by the NRA and other gun-huggers is that more guns make you safer in your home and on the street. Gun control advocates state otherwise. Boiled down, yes, but I believe speaks to the basic point.

Compare two countries very similar in composition and orientation, Canada and the USA. Canada, ~150 gun-related homicides (2011). USA, about 8,400 (2010). Adjust for 10x difference in population, then compare: 1,500 vs 8,400. Ratio: 1 to 5.5. But USA has about 20x the number of guns that Canada has (admittedly, only an estimate, as the number of illegal weapons is unknown). Argument that more guns make you safer does not wash. Data does not lie, it is what it is. Unlike people, data has no agenda. Ergo, control gun population. Logical outcome: federal legislation backed by a reference from SCOTUS. Likely outcome: enormous effort by gun manufacturers to protect their profits at the expense of lives, and "muddification" of the politics.

Problem: 2nd amendment interpretation. Solution: per above, redefined interpretation from SCOTUS. After all, they've done it recently

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/national/Firearm related homicides Canada lowest point years/7651344/story.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

No Piers Morgan there, just facts. People who deny facts have their head in the sand or elsewhere. And will get run over, eventually. They might as well belong to the Flat Earth Society.

BTW, from someone's profile, I've been using the internet (or it's predecessors, arpanet and milnet) since about the time they were born. Welcome to the internet, and have a nice day.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5359 posts, RR: 14
Reply 94, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2883 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 92):
But it is OK for proponents guns without responsibility to prop up their argument with a single feel good case....
http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/ar...y-with-shotgun-until-police-arrive
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ned-fire-at-atlanta-middle-school/
http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/H....html?mobile=yes&device=iphone
http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/M...t-Burglary-Suspects-188482781.html
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013...oit-bus-stop-with-her-9mm-handgun/
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/20...eteran-scares-off-burglar-with-gun
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
http://www.krem.com/news/local/Woman...truder-in-bathroom--187987021.html
http://theworldlink.com/news/local/c...4-6676-11e2-82ca-0019bb2963f4.html


It's not just one. It happens everyday. Just like people are shot in the commission of a crime or accidentally, people successfully defend themselves, and others, everyday with firearms. Why don't we hear about them? For the same reason we don't hear about all the ones and twos that are killed. It's not big news, except maybe locally, when someone stops a crime.

And, in other news: while sheriff is telling the people he serves to take some responsibility for their safety by suggesting they take some classes and arm themselves, the [url=fhttp://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/active_shooter_pocket_card.pdf]ederal government is telling folks throw things.[/url]

Now I understand that many workplaces are "gun-free" (mine is), but, why wouldn't the DHS even acknowledge that using a gun may be possible or even necessary in some circumstances? A statement like "if you have a firearm, you may be required to use it to defend yourself." Of course, a cautionary statement in the "When Law Enforcement Arrives" section would also be in order.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12345 posts, RR: 25
Reply 95, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2877 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 94):
why wouldn't the DHS even acknowledge that using a gun may be possible or even necessary in some circumstances?

Because it's a crap policy to recommend that more people arm themselves?   

Again, we know a gun in the home is more likely to kill a family member or acquittance than a home invader.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5359 posts, RR: 14
Reply 96, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2871 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 95):
Because it's a crap policy to recommend that more people arm themselves?

Not even talking about "more" people. How about the people that are already armed? For the DHS to fail to acknowledge that there may be folks out there that are armed and could intervene to effectively end a mass shooting, hell, not even that, to effectively protect themselves by shooting an active shooter, is the DHS burying its collective head in the sand.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12345 posts, RR: 25
Reply 97, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 96):
Not even talking about "more" people. How about the people that are already armed?

Just as much of a crap policy because...

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 96):
For the DHS to fail to acknowledge that there may be folks out there that are armed and could intervene to effectively end a mass shooting, hell, not even that, to effectively protect themselves by shooting an active shooter, is the DHS burying its collective head in the sand.

... you seem to be presuming with high likelihood that the outcome of such scenarios is that the one that would end up dead is the "active shooter" as opposed to the "defender".



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 98, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2828 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 91):
So we are relying on statistics and reports from the NRA to promote gun control?

Since they were the ones who funded cutting funding for such studies, they are the ones to blame. Yes.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 89):
I mentioned Inglewood, California. That is where I was held up. The other place was near San Bernardino.

Inglewood, yes. When was that? I would not go into Richmond. Ever. Even if Contra Costa county has the strictest gun legislation ever, I still would not ever go there. Because people could very easily go to Oakland or Santa Rosa or Reno to get guns. That was my point about Chicago. How easy is it for people to go from Chicago to Gary to buy guns? Inglewood, not so much.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 83):
Those incidents happened because you had someone "angry at the world".

In that moment. Not every "responsible" gun owner has that logic. Not every gun owner can stay focused and say "okay... because I was cut off, this is not a time or place to use my AR-15."

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 83):
The Virginia Tech shooter's hobby was sending hate mail to GWBush for example

Oh, I see... because one person sent angry e-mails to GWB, everyone who opposed some or all policies of GWB are evil and are gun toting psychopaths. Got it. Now I know what I am dealing with. Thanks for showing your hand.

This is why I hate that you suck me in. You have no idea how to deal with small groups of people. You just paint with a broad brush. You just throw *stuff* at the wall and see what sticks. You really are the lowest common denominator. I know you don't care, because I am a "liberal" who hates America but I really to try my hardest to distinguish the crazys from the Republican party. You, sir, are a crazy.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 99, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2831 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 94):
It's not just one. It happens everyday. Just like people are shot in the commission of a crime or accidentally, people successfully defend themselves, and others, everyday with firearms. Why don't we hear about them? For the same reason we don't hear about all the ones and twos that are killed. It's not big news, except maybe locally, when someone stops a crime.

Of course there are times when it works. That is one of the reasons we talk about gun control and not gun ban. There really are two sides to the story. Not just the hero side the NRA side like to push.

You need to acknowledge that there are a scary amount of bad coming from the combination of weapons and irresponsible owners and industry. That is what gun control is about. Take responsibility. You're not a hero who can do no wrong because you carry a weapon for self defense.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 96):
Not even talking about "more" people. How about the people that are already armed? For the DHS to fail to acknowledge that there may be folks out there that are armed and could intervene to effectively end a mass shooting, hell, not even that, to effectively protect themselves by shooting an active shooter, is the DHS burying its collective head in the sand.

That is the so dangerous hero mentality that is very likely to be a villain in the end. Not so likely by going rouge and shoot people but by providing guns to criminals, make them available to kids and other people who don't know how to handle a gun or just stupid accidents because they stop showing the respect required.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 100, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2827 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 94):
It's not just one. It happens everyday. Just like people are shot in the commission of a crime or accidentally, people successfully defend themselves, and others, everyday with firearms. Why don't we hear about them? For the same reason we don't hear about all the ones and twos that are killed. It's not big news, except maybe locally, when someone stops a crime.

Let's look at Tucson. There were people carrying. Responsible, registered gun owners carrying. When the shooter started firing, *some* (not all, but some) of those packing *wanted* to start shooting. In any direction. Go back and look at eye-witness accounts. Some did have self-control and understand what was going on. We know that. We understand that there are some who actually know how and when to use firearms and others who just start firing in hopes of being a hero.

Then, there are people who hear a noise outside, grab their gun and just start firing. The grandparents in Minnesota. Google it. I hate posting links because I "have a liberal bias" so you can Google it and read for yourself.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12345 posts, RR: 25
Reply 101, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2785 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 99):
Of course there are times when it works. That is one of the reasons we talk about gun control and not gun ban. There really are two sides to the story. Not just the hero side the NRA side like to push.

You need to acknowledge that there are a scary amount of bad coming from the combination of weapons and irresponsible owners and industry. That is what gun control is about. Take responsibility. You're not a hero who can do no wrong because you carry a weapon for self defense.

In addition, NRA likes to portray these heros as super-human when they are not, they're just humans. While they can be trained and responsible gun owners 99.9% of the time, they also occasionally get jilted by a lover, or (intentionally or not) drink too much on occasion, or lose a job or a promotion unexpectedly, etc.

Bottom line: more guns is not the answer.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5359 posts, RR: 14
Reply 102, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2786 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 100):
Some did have self-control and understand what was going on.


Actually, all (and, as I recall, only one person had identified himself as carrying at the time of the shooting, were there more?) that were carrying exercised self-control, because none start shooting.

Quoting cmf (Reply 99):
That is the so dangerous hero mentality that is very likely to be a villain in the end.


So, your answer is to lay in hiding and hope that the police get to you before the killer does? I'm sorry, it's not a hero mentality to want every available avenue to defend yourself. It's a sense of self-preservation. That's the way I was brought up (by my liberal parents, no less); that I have to take responsibility for myself.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 97):
... you seem to be presuming with high likelihood that the outcome of such scenarios is that the one that would end up dead is the "active shooter" as opposed to the "defender".


In my book, it's better than sitting there waiting to be "dead".

Now, let's be clear, I don't think I'm going to be involved in a mass-shooting. I probably stand a better chance of getting hit by lightning...twice. But, these events do happen and for the DHS to fail to acknowledge that there may be an armed person amongst the potential victims, especially in a nation with over 200 million firearms in non-state hands, is to deny reality. Their "pocket-card" should at least address the issue.

The Sheriff has it right. The police can't be everywhere and everything for everyone. We need to take responsibility for our own safety. Whether, that's just having a heightened sense of awareness when walking to your car at night or arming yourself...it's up to us to take those steps to protect and defend ourselves. Six minutes (approx average response time to a 911 call in this area) is a long time to wait.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12345 posts, RR: 25
Reply 103, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2761 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 102):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 97):
... you seem to be presuming with high likelihood that the outcome of such scenarios is that the one that would end up dead is the "active shooter" as opposed to the "defender".

In my book, it's better than sitting there waiting to be "dead".

Now you are equating being passive to being dead, which may be the way you see things, but is far from the guaranteed or likely outcome.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 102):
for the DHS to fail to acknowledge that there may be an armed person amongst the potential victims, especially in a nation with over 200 million firearms in non-state hands, is to deny reality.

But it's still a crap policy to encourage private gun ownership in general and for the "average" gun owner to get themselves involved in particular.

BTW, would you like to be the cop who (finally?) gets to the scene and has to figure out who is the bad guy and who is the good guy while bullets are flying around?

The real answer is less guns. If you've have a tumor you don't say that it's been there so long and it's the way things are, you get rid of it and try to move on.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 102):
The Sheriff has it right. The police can't be everywhere and everything for everyone. We need to take responsibility for our own safety.

Might as well get rid of the police as well then. Arm everybody, and if you feel threatened, shoot first and ask questions later. We'll all be in NRA nirvana where their hero class shall reign supreme!

Might as well not bother checking water quality, food quality, medical quality, aircraft quality, automobile quality, etc since we're all responsible for our own safety. Who needs a military then, since we're all responsible for our safety?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 104, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2755 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 103):
Who needs a military then, since we're all responsible for our own safety ?

I could be way off base here, but wasn't that the underlying logic for the 2nd Amendment ? IIRC from the American History I took in high school, the US Constitution predated any standing military, therefore a citizen's militia was the basic defense against the hated British to the north.

If that's the case, then, once the United States Army is founded and is a force in being, the whole rationale for the 2nd Amendment seems to me to go away. The need to maintain a militia no longer exists, ergo the right/need to "bear arms" (however you may define them: gun, Bowie knife, crossbow, etc) goes away as well.

But perhaps my professional logic is getting in the way of what is clearly an emotional argument.

Frankly, I'd rather arm the bears.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 105, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2740 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 102):
all (and, as I recall, only one person had identified himself as carrying at the time of the shooting, were there more?) that were carrying exercised self-control, because none start shooting.

I see... so that just carrys over to every single incident ever? There has never ever been a case ever where someone started shooting and another started shooting, then another? Really? Never happened?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5359 posts, RR: 14
Reply 106, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2737 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 103):
Might as well get rid of the police as well then. Arm everybody, and if you feel threatened, shoot first and ask questions later. We'll all be in NRA nirvana where their hero class shall reign supreme!

Might as well not bother checking water quality, food quality, medical quality, aircraft quality, automobile quality, etc since we're all responsible for our own safety. Who needs a military then, since we're all responsible for our safety?


And, that, my friends, is the liberal fall back. If someone wants limited government, it means they want no government. If someone wants to exercise some responsibility for their safety, we can now get rid of the police and the military. We don't want government run health care insurance, we are against health care. We want tax reform, it means we don't want to pay any taxes. We want accountability in schools, we hate education. Responsible regulation out of the EPA? Dirty air and water is what we crave. Ridiculous.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 103):
Now you are equating being passive to being dead, which may be the way you see things, but is far from the guaranteed or likely outcome.


I didn't equate it to "being dead", I equated it to "waiting to be dead". There is a difference.

You do lock your home's doors, right? How about your car door? Own a fire extinguisher? Believe or not, if you take those precautions, you are taking some responsibility for your own safety. The sheriff is just asking the people he serves to take a couple of extra steps.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone doesn't want to take those extra precautions, that would be up to them.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 105):
I see... so that just carrys over to every single incident ever? There has never ever been a case ever where someone started shooting and another started shooting, then another? Really? Never happened?

You'll note, that I'm not the one that brought it up. You used it as an example that some of the folks carrying wanted to shoot "in any direction". I just pointed out that you were wrong. As far as I could find, only one person indicated they were armed.

By the way, please point to a news article where folks were caught in the cross-fire because untrained civilians started shooting at a threat. Has it happened? Probably. Often? Not even close. I would suggest "rarely, if ever". Even though over the last 15 years about 2/3rds of the states have become shall issue states and more folks are choosing to carry than ever before (that last bit is anecdotal).

The only incident that comes to mind is the NYPD officers that shot 9 folks.

[Edited 2013-02-02 09:59:37]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39704 posts, RR: 75
Reply 107, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2727 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 98):
When was that?


1994. Does that really matter? Inglewood is just as dangerous today as it was in 1994.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 98):
How easy is it for people to go from Chicago to Gary to buy guns?


Gary is very dangerous. They're better off buying their guns in Hammond or Calumet City.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 98):
I would not go into Richmond. Ever. Even if Contra Costa county has the strictest gun legislation ever, I still would not ever go there.


So is this an admission that you have no faith in gun control laws?



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12345 posts, RR: 25
Reply 108, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2723 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 104):
I could be way off base here, but wasn't that the underlying logic for the 2nd Amendment ? IIRC from the American History I took in high school, the US Constitution predated any standing military, therefore a citizen's militia was the basic defense against the hated British to the north.

If that's the case, then, once the United States Army is founded and is a force in being, the whole rationale for the 2nd Amendment seems to me to go away. The need to maintain a militia no longer exists, ergo the right/need to "bear arms" (however you may define them: gun, Bowie knife, crossbow, etc) goes away as well.

Pretty cogent argument, especially if you read the 2nd amendment in the context of the 3rd, which is about the government not being able to force private citizens to quarter soldiers. However, Mr Scalia kind of went off on his own and created a whole new interpretation...

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 104):
Frankly, I'd rather arm the bears.

Seems you can find plenty of work in the Russian AF!  



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8792 posts, RR: 24
Reply 109, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2720 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 104):
If that's the case, then, once the United States Army is founded and is a force in being, the whole rationale for the 2nd Amendment seems to me to go away.

It is not the only reason, or even the main reason. According to those below (many of which actually wrote the Constitution and knew what they meant it to mean), a principle reason for the 2nd Amendment was that 1) You cannot depend on the government to defend you, and 2) that if the government gets too big for its britches, the people have a Natural Right to fight it, as happened in the Revolutionary War.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
--Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

" ... most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved."
-- James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604

"The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
-- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12345 posts, RR: 25
Reply 110, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2681 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 106):
And, that, my friends, is the liberal fall back.

And the conserative fall back is if the police aren't effective enough, don't fix the police, arm the citizens.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 106):
You do lock your home's doors, right? How about your car door? Own a fire extinguisher? Believe or not, if you take those precautions, you are taking some responsibility for your own safety. The sheriff is just asking the people he serves to take a couple of extra steps.

Data shows that guns have a lot more dangerous consequences when misused than do door locks or fire extinguishers.

The problem is guns.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 111, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2673 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 110):
Data shows that guns have a lot more dangerous consequences when misused than do door locks or fire extinguishers.

The problem is guns.

Come on Rev, you know you can't resolve this complex issue with a 4 word sentence. There are plenty of factors that play in. Data shows that you're more likely to shoot someone you know on accident rather than an intruder, but does that blanket statement consider all the factors? Can proper training (which this sheriff did mention) tip the odds in favor of defense?

I don't know, honestly. It's a very complex issue but I'm not gonna stick to the extremes... I think there is too many untrained morons with guns but I also think that properly trained people can indeed competently defend themselves and others. Police do it, citizens can too (even if they often are incompetent)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8792 posts, RR: 24
Reply 112, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2658 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 110):

And the conserative fall back is if the police aren't effective enough, don't fix the police, arm the citizens.

Do you think it is possible to have a police that is 100% effective? Catches every crook, foils every armed robbery attempt, murder attempt? This is a Yes or No question.

The whole point of the Milwaukee County Sheriff is such perfection is impossible to achieve, and that we should be prepared to deal with those who get through.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12345 posts, RR: 25
Reply 113, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2635 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 111):
Come on Rev, you know you can't resolve this complex issue with a 4 word sentence.

Indeed, but the refreshing thing about the post-Newtown world is that we can begin to counter decades of NRA brainwashing.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 111):
Can proper training (which this sheriff did mention) tip the odds in favor of defense?

Consider how much training (both initial and on-going) that police get with regards to firearms and the implications of their use, and answer for yourself.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 112):
Do you think it is possible to have a police that is 100% effective? Catches every crook, foils every armed robbery attempt, murder attempt? This is a Yes or No question.

Talking of going to extremes...

I might as well join.

Do you think it's possible to train civilians so they have a 0.0000% rate of misuse of firearms?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 112):
The whole point of the Milwaukee County Sheriff is such perfection is impossible to achieve, and that we should be prepared to deal with those who get through.

And my whole point is the emphasis should be on reducing the number of guns and their use, since it's clear misuse of firearms is common and eliminating misuse is impossible and the implications of misuse are grave.

I doubt too many law enforcement officials would agree that encouraging civilians to decide to take matters into their own hands is a good approach.

Hurray to the right wing and the NRA for finding the one who does and making him a hero...   



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineSpeedbird741 From Portugal, joined Aug 2008, 654 posts, RR: 0
Reply 114, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2594 times:

Whilst I most certainly am not a fan of Piers Morgan's journalistic style or indeed of his views and opinions, I have to stand up and give him a massive salute for having said what he did. I do reckon this was a poor response for someone in his profession and position, but, placing that aside, I fully sympathise with his sentiment. There is only so much stupidity one can listen to before having the very heated rush of energy bursting up and prompting such hot-headed behaviors. The amount of utter nonsense that Morgan's guest was "spouting" about is simply too much to handle and, in my opinion, Morgan was right to belittle him and his views as much as possible. I have tried, but I simply cannot begin to understand how any person with any level of cerebral activity can suggest more firearms as a solution to this problem. I simply can't. And, mind you, I am very much on the right hand side of the political spectrum.
Cheers to you, Piers Morgan!

And an even bigger salute to Morgan for this interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC4JJWUtzkc

Speedbird741

[Edited 2013-02-02 18:23:15]


Boa noite Faro, Air Portugal 257 climbing flight level 340
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 115, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2583 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 113):
Consider how much training (both initial and on-going) that police get with regards to firearms and the implications of their use, and answer for yourself.

Well, don't you think cops are going need a lot more training since it's kinda their job to go into dangerous situations all the time? Look, I think it's a terrible idea for Joe Blow to buy a gun, look up some tips on youtube, and consider himself good to go for defending everyone and being a hero, but I also don't think you need to be a full blown cop to:

1. know how to operate and maintain a gun
2. not point weapons at people
3. not putting your finger on the trigger when you're not pointing at a target
4. locking up your weapons when not in use (minus being out for defense)
5. not shooting at every shadow at night
6. if house is broken into, calling 911 and hiding with your gun instead of being Rambo
7. last and probably most importantly, just because you have a gun doesn't mean you need to use it

Now if everyone did that I guarantee you firearm "accidents" would sharply decline, kids wouldn't be shot by their parents in the middle of the night, "robberies that go bad" would happen a lot less, etc. You don't need to be a cop or infantryman to know how to use a gun, it's not something you need to train for years on, just some good solid training and common sense does the trick (oh, and a lot less hero/macho mentality)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8792 posts, RR: 24
Reply 116, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2578 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 115):
1. know how to operate and maintain a gun
2. not point weapons at people
3. not putting your finger on the trigger when you're not pointing at a target
4. locking up your weapons when not in use (minus being out for defense)
5. not shooting at every shadow at night
6. if house is broken into, calling 911 and hiding with your gun instead of being Rambo
7. last and probably most importantly, just because you have a gun doesn't mean you need to use it

Now if everyone did that I guarantee you firearm "accidents" would sharply decline, kids wouldn't be shot by their parents in the middle of the night, "robberies that go bad" would happen a lot less, etc.

That's pretty much the curriculum of every NRA class, meeting and seminar. Also of all the gun safety classes provided to get a CCP.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 117, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2562 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 23):
The reason that the NRA opposes closing the gun-show loophole is that the gun manufacturers who fund them won't be able to sell as much as demand will fall if people feel more secure that those buying guns are law-abiding.

Here's your big problem; you're trying to talk about something that you don't really understand, and have very little real knowledge of, which happens to be in ANOTHER COUNTRY, where you don't A. live, B. vote, or C., pay taxes in.
The so-called "loop hole" that you keep talking about is NOT a "loop hole" at all.

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 42):
I rather be a leftists statist that a member of the blood curdling NRA who cares more about bushmasters than cares about the people who are killed by assault riffles and big ass clips that they love to represent. If you need an AR-15 to protect your house you're crazy. Do these gun nuts need to kill a bunch of people and create an insurrection against your country or fight off a police force or the US Army? Assault riffles are for the battlefield and civil shooting ranges not for hunting or protection unless you want to fight off the government ala Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Your ridiculous statement about the NRA is YOUR opinion, which, (along with a dollar or two) may buy you a cup of coffee in a few fast food places. And all of your talk about "gun nuts"; You rattle on in one sentence about the NRA (because you don't like it, you think it's "bad", because YOU say it's "bad"; then you start yelling about the "gun nuts", as if THEY were NRA members; let me point something out to you: every single "shooter" in every single "mass shooting so far, from Columbine, to the one in the movies, the one at Va.Tech, and the last one in CT..........were ALL democrats, children of democrats, or known to "favor" democrats. NONE have been members of, or sympathetic to, the NRA; from my prospective, what does this tell me ? That just maybe we need a "law" banning democrats from owning guns !

You apparently don't own a gun, don't "carry" a gun, and really "hate" guns; Have you ever had an NRA member screaming at you to BUY a gun ? that you should start "carrying" a gun ? that you should "join" the NRA ? I don't think you have, or are you likely to; but you STILL want to impose YOUR "ideas" on other people; I have to tell you; you're beating a very dead horse.

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 49):
For me, a more accurate analogy for using a gun to protect until the police arrive is having high-powered hoses installed or industrial grade fire extinguishers to fight fires, while waiting for fire brigade (not the best examples), which if not trained correctly, can cause much more harm to property/lives than good. The in-home security equivilant of emergency food supplies and a home fire extinguisher, would be having a good alarm system, having doors and windows locked or even double locked, and having a room inside which can be locked until police come.

CXfirst; I like Norway; I think your country is beautiful, (although I've never been there) I think you flag is beautiful; I often "root" for your athletes in the Olympics. But I must tell you; our countries are very different; what "works" in one, will not necessarily "work" in the other; I live in a very small village; we have a very good all-volunteer fire department, and the fire house is only half a mile from my house; my house, my next door neighbor's house, and about five more neighbors around me, never have any "problems" with burglars or thieves; mainly because we ALL have shot guns, rifles, and hand guns to protect our property; and we are ALL quite legal in doing it. It's fine to be "prepared", to have "alarms"; I have two very good "alarms".......(their names are "Steamer" and "Blackie", and they usually sleep on the front porch; we also have a VERY good Sheriff's Department, and the Sheriff is a very good friend; we also have something else that many counties around the country DON'T have; we have a county prosecutor, and a county judge who are NOT sympathetic to "perps", burglars, home-invaders, or other "riff raft"; around here, those types are on VERY dangerous ground; ( which is one reason we don't have many problems with them ) I'm looking forward to seeing you in Sochi !

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 118, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2551 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 102):
So, your answer is to lay in hiding and hope that the police get to you before the killer does?

Almost always the right response is to take cover and only take action if threatened at that location. Rushing out confronting will most likely make you the victim.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 102):
I'm sorry, it's not a hero mentality to want every available avenue to defend yourself. It's a sense of self-preservation. That's the way I was brought up (by my liberal parents, no less); that I have to take responsibility for myself.

Always blame liberals.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 102):
In my book, it's better than sitting there waiting to be "dead".

By letting them come to you your chances are much better than the reverse, heroes die.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 102):
The Sheriff has it right. The police can't be everywhere and everything for everyone. We need to take responsibility for our own safety. Whether, that's just having a heightened sense of awareness when walking to your car at night or arming yourself...it's up to us to take those steps to protect and defend ourselves. Six minutes (approx average response time to a 911 call in this area) is a long time to wait.

And you have a responsibility to make sure you don't endanger others because of your fear. That is where American gun owners, as group, are horrible.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 104):
But perhaps my professional logic is getting in the way of what is clearly an emotional argument.

Frankly, I'd rather arm the bears.

  

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 106):
And, that, my friends, is the liberal fall back.

When you have no argument blme it on liberals and make outlandish claims about what they want to do. What they actually want to do doesn't matter.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 109):
1) You cannot depend on the government to defend you, and 2) that if the government gets too big for its britches, the people have a Natural Right to fight it, as happened in the Revolutionary War.

Which is absolutely correct. But I'm sure they are turning in their graves seeing how what they did is used to state that gun owners are without responsibility. The stand your ground laws are the most horrendous example.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 110):
Data shows that guns have a lot more dangerous consequences when misused than do door locks or fire extinguishers.

  

Quoting Revelation (Reply 110):
The problem is guns.

The problems are gun owners who are
- irresponsible
- think they are heroes who will save the day
- carry because of fearmongering


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 119, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2550 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 117):
The so-called "loop hole" that you keep talking about is NOT a "loop hole" at all.

Except that it is. As much as 40% of weapons sold each year is sold that way.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 117):
You apparently don't own a gun, don't "carry" a gun, and really "hate" guns; Have you ever had an NRA member screaming at you to BUY a gun ? that you should start "carrying" a gun ? that you should "join" the NRA ? I don't think you have, or are you likely to; but you STILL want to impose YOUR "ideas" on other people; I have to tell you; you're beating a very dead horse.

Complain about outlandish statements and do it yourself defense. How Rush Limbaugh of you.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 117):
CXfirst; I like Norway; I think your country is beautiful, (although I've never been there) I think you flag is beautiful; I often "root" for your athletes in the Olympics. But I must tell you; our countries are very different; what "works" in one, will not necessarily "work" in the other; I live in a very small village; we have a very good all-volunteer fire department, and the fire house is only half a mile from my house; my house, my next door neighbor's house, and about five more neighbors around me, never have any "problems" with burglars or thieves; mainly because we ALL have shot guns, rifles, and hand guns to protect our property; and we are ALL quite legal in doing it. It's fine to be "prepared", to have "alarms"; I have two very good "alarms".......(their names are "Steamer" and "Blackie", and they usually sleep on the front porch; we also have a VERY good Sheriff's Department, and the Sheriff is a very good friend; we also have something else that many counties around the country DON'T have; we have a county prosecutor, and a county judge who are NOT sympathetic to "perps", burglars, home-invaders, or other "riff raft"; around here, those types are on VERY dangerous ground; ( which is one reason we don't have many problems with them ) I'm looking forward to seeing you in Sochi !

Seems you should learn a bit more about Norway.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 120, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2546 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 118):
And you have a responsibility to make sure you don't endanger others because of your fear. That is where American gun owners, as group, are horrible.

I have to disagree with this one. American gun owners, as a group, tend to be very responsible people, and the fact that they own and/or carry guns endangers nobody. Those who put others at risk because of their fear and paranoia are a vocal minority of American gun owners, and the lobbyists at the NRA who spout their talking points (i.e. the talking points of the paranoid, not the average gun owner).

A lack of a universal background check requirement puts people in danger. A lack of effective anti-trafficking laws puts people in danger. An overwhelming majority of NRA members support those things, but you'd never know it from listening to the NRA leadership. And, of course, Congress doesn't listen to the people when making the laws, they listen to the lobbyists.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 121, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2520 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 99):
You need to acknowledge that there are a scary amount of bad coming from the combination of weapons and irresponsible owners and industry. That is what gun control is about. Take responsibility. You're not a hero who can do no wrong because you carry a weapon for self defense.

Let me ask you something; what makes you so sure that you are always right, and everyone who disagrees with your view point, is always wrong ? So you think there is a "scary amount of bad" coming from weapons, irresponsible owners and industry ? Kinda hard to say anything intelligent about three things all at once, so I'll have to answer your "points" one at a time;

1. Weapons; just like cars, ball bats, straight razors, and a few million more things, weapons are no better or no worse than the individual handling them. Your side thinks "assault type weapons with BIG magazines" are BAD, BAD,BAD, because they can kill lots of people, quickly; yes, they sure can ! that's what they were designed for; so that make you HALF right; but what you fail to recognize is, any person bent on killing "lots of people quickly" will have no trouble at all doing that, even if you and all the people who agree with you, are able to eliminate EVERY "assault type weapon" from the face of the earth; you may remember about a 747 that was flying over Lockerbie, Scottland a few years ago ? That terrorist didn't even have a pen knife in his pocket; but he sure killed a lot of people just the same!

2. irresponsible owners; a classic example of that would be, the woman in Connecticut ( a democrat, BTW ), who provided an entire arsenal to her mentally challenged, idiot son. Neither I, nor the NRA have EVER advocated "irresponsible owners" to own or carry ANY kind of weapons. To the contrary, both myself and the NRA have worked tirelessly, advocating ALL owners of weapons to be fully trained, not only in the safe and proper use of weapons, but also in the legal ramifications of "who to shoot" and "who NOT to shoot".

3. Industry; I don't really think the gun makers need me to speak for them; I think they are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.

Quoting cmf (Reply 99):
That is the so dangerous hero mentality that is very likely to be a villain in the end. Not so likely by going rouge and shoot people but by providing guns to criminals, make them available to kids and other people who don't know how to handle a gun or just stupid accidents because they stop showing the respect required.

In reading all of that 3 times now, I'm not sure whether you're accusing me of illegally selling weapons to criminals, whether you're accusing me of trying to be a "hero", or whether your just intimating that I may be stupid ?
1. I never have, nor will I ever, sell any weapon to any criminal;
2. I can assure you I have no desire or inclination to ever be a hero; as a matter of fact, I won't even allow a TV news photographer to take my picture; and if you don't believe that, I can introduce you to one in Norwood, Ohio who ended up with a broken nose because he tried to any way.
3. as for being "stupid".......you possibly may think I, (or anyone else who disagrees with your POV is "stupid"), but I can assure you I'm not.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 101):
In addition, NRA likes to portray these heros as super-human when they are not, they're just humans. While they can be trained and responsible gun owners 99.9% of the time, they also occasionally get jilted by a lover, or (intentionally or not) drink too much on occasion, or lose a job or a promotion unexpectedly, etc.

You will have a very difficult time trying to prove that the NRA has EVER "portrayed" any NRA member as being "super-human"; and yes, members can be, and ARE trained and are responsible gun owners 100% of the time; NRA members NEVER get "jilted", not only do we not drink "too much", we don't drink ANYTHING containing alcohol, EVER. (and being retired and reasonably "comfortable", I think I can pretty well rule out "job loss" and "lack of promotion"; BTW.......while we're on that subject........are YOU totally impervious to all of those terrible things that you are attempting to suggest that anyone who owns a weapon "might be" guilty of ?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 103):
But it's still a crap policy to encourage private gun ownership in general and for the "average" gun owner to get themselves involved in particular.

After reading that statement just once........I think it would appear to any unbiased person that the person who wrote that is VERY dogmatic ! ( "one who is given to stating one's own opinions as though they were proven facts". )

Your statement about "gun owners"..........how about CAR owners ? do you think ALL "car owners" are "perfect" ? Do you think it's possible that a few my get drunk and KILL PEOPLE with their cars from time to time ? And do you think "banning cars" might solve that problem ? I must point out that, anyone having a desire to "kill lots of people quickly", can (and have, on more than one occasion), driven a vehicle at high speed into a big crowd of pedestrians (individuals on foot), killing and injuring many of them. There have also been many more who accomplished the same despicable thing, by blowing up large buildings containing many people.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 103):
The real answer is less guns. If you've have a tumor you don't say that it's been there so long and it's the way things are, you get rid of it and try to move on.

You opinion: The real answer is less guns.
My opinion: The real answer is fewer criminals (and crazy people) WITH guns, AND...more well trained, law-abiding gun owners ALSO with guns; ( criminals are more intelligent that you give them credit for; they tend to "pick the low-hanging fruit"; well trained, law-abiding, responsible gun owners are NOT "low hanging fruit"; (if you get my drift) if you choose to continue to depend on others to insure your personal safety, that's YOUR business; (but you will be "low hanging fruit")

As for "tumors"......I already did what you are suggesting; I "got rid of it" and "moved on", and now here I am, trying to point out to a few people who always seem to think they have all the answers to all the problems, why their "answers" many times ARE "the problem" !

Quoting cmf (Reply 119):
Except that it is. As much as 40% of weapons sold each year is sold that way.

Guess what; I'm not even going to waste any time trying to explain to you why that statement is incorrect; what I am going to tell you is.......there are hundreds of millions of people in the United States: there are at least one and a half to two times that many guns; a very large % of those guns are legally owned, and some aren't. In addition to all of those terrible guns you left wing folks spend so much time being concerned about, there are also millions and millions of criminals, crazy people, "nut-jobs", crooked politicians, and so on in the U.S., and THAT's who (and what) you NEED to start worrying about, and forget about trying to "disarm" all of the "legal, law abiding citizen gun owners", because it ISN"T going to happen ! ( EVER ! )

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlinejpetekyxmd80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4382 posts, RR: 27
Reply 122, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2514 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 121):
the woman in Connecticut ( a democrat, BTW )

How on earth can you claim such a thing, much less grandstand on it.

1. I don't believe you
2. How shameless



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5359 posts, RR: 14
Reply 123, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2497 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 118):
Almost always the right response is to take cover and only take action if threatened at that location. Rushing out confronting will most likely make you the victim.
Quoting cmf (Reply 118):
By letting them come to you your chances are much better than the reverse, heroes die.


And where did you see that I would take the fight to the attacker? The term I would use is "shelter in place." Under your scenario (and the DHS's), if the attacker (home invader, mass shooter, etc.) finds you, you will throw things at him. Under mine, I would have the ability to shoot him if he (or she) enters the space I'm sheltering in.

The only proviso that comes to mind: if a loved one is being attacked or in danger of being attacked.

Quoting cmf (Reply 118):
And you have a responsibility to make sure you don't endanger others because of your fear.


I don't buy home owners' or automobile insurance because I'm afraid. I don't have a fire extinguisher because I'm afraid. I don't lock my doors because I'm afraid. I don't own and carry a firearm because I'm afraid. I do these things, because in my opinion, it is prudent to do so. These things provide options.

Quoting cmf (Reply 118):
Always blame liberals.


Where, exactly, have a blamed a liberal for anything?

Quoting Mir (Reply 120):

I have to disagree with this one. American gun owners, as a group, tend to be very responsible people, and the fact that they own and/or carry guns endangers nobody.


Thank you.

Quoting cmf (Reply 119):
As much as 40% of weapons sold each year is sold that way.


I've seen that number bandied around for a while now, but have yet to see the methodology behind this number. Exactly how is it possible to determine that 40% of all gun sales are private? I'm really interested in that number and that methodology. Personally, I think it was pulled out of Bloomberg's ass.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 124, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2498 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 109):
It is not the only reason, or even the main reason. According to those below (many of which actually wrote the Constitution and knew what they meant it to mean), a principle reason for the 2nd Amendment was that 1) You cannot depend on the government to defend you, and 2) that if the government gets too big for its britches, the people have a Natural Right to fight it, as happened in the Revolutionary War.


Thanks for the reading assignment !  I will not debate your depth of knowledge w.r.t. the US Constitution or history -- as I indicated, in Canada basically we get a year of it in high school. And of course I've picked things up anecdotally along the way. But you're clearly way ahead of me in this regard.

But, again coming at this topic from the p.o.v. of an outsider and one perhaps less informed:

w.r.t. to 1) isn't the point of the US Army to defend everyone ? I understand it is used as an instrument of policy (i.e., for better or worse, Iraq), but I would think it's primary purpose is to defend American sovereignty and the citizens therein. Otherwise why would it exist ?

w.r.t. to 2) I have an idea that the Revolutionary War was fought on the "no taxation without representation" mantra (which I agree with) and that absent that condition, fighting the Crown was a "Natural Right". However, with the advent of democracy, every American (absent the black & native populations, of course) now has a vote. My thought would be that the "Natural Right" argument at that point tends to get undercut since, at least in theory, the entire population is now actually, personally, involved in the government through the ballot. Everyone has a say, and a decision is arrived at. And if any citizen does not engage in the process, does not vote, they then have no cause or justification for complaint.
And this is true in my country as well -- alarmingly, we have seen voter participation rates drop in the past twenty or so years from a historic low-70s percentage to just below 60 in our last General Election. Not a good thing.

So those are my basic thoughts, and I am sure they will generate further commentary.

I will add two comments of a personal nature which may illuminate many to my opposition to guns. Never handled one, let alone fired one. A high school friend of mine,frequent visitor to the family home for tea and cookies, killed his stepfather. Shot him. He got into the Winnipeg drug scene and really lost his perspective, despite many attempts by myself and others to get him into a treatment program. This was about 1980. Garth was sitting on the front stoop with the shotgun when the police attended, offered no resistance. Plead guilty and the sentence was life imprisonment, followed by treatment at a secure psychiatric facility "at the pleasure of Her Majesty" - this basically means he never gets out. He is allowed escorted walks and other outings in a group, such as a trip to a park. But basically his life is over.

Second point is, I was engaged to a woman in Greensboro NC (beautiful location) in the 90s. Long story short, I made it clear to her my opposition to guns, and IIRC my "policy" statement was "I will not live in a house where there is a gun". This was a point of debate but I made myself quite clear. In the summer of 1993, she said she had a surprise for me, and pulled a Beretta 22 (I believe) out of the night table, to show me. It was for her "protection". I asked her if she recalled what I had said, she nodded, and I said "Right, then. I mean what I said.". I packed my bags, called a cab, went to a hotel, left the next day, and I have not seen Patricia since. Didn't get the ring back, either. Pity, a beautiful, intelligent, talented person (interior decorator).

Apologies if this seems a bit maudlin, but that's my experience. Friends of mine, of long standing, go hunting for geese and ducks every autumn, and occasionally I am gifted with a goose, which is very nice. I have no problem with them hunting. Crap, I love fishing, and that's hunting but with a different weapon. But I will not be around my friends when they have their guns out -- and they are uber cautious: trigger locks, ammo in a secure location physically separate, the whole nine yards. But for me once again it's a policy thing. Consistency is important.

Anyway, I've rattled on far too long. Enjoy the Puppy Bowl !



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5359 posts, RR: 14
Reply 125, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2488 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 124):
1) isn't the point of the US Army to defend everyone ?

Yes, everyone, collectively, not individually. By the way, the US military does not, except under federal emergency powers (and then it's usually the National Guard at the request of a Governor) operate to maintain the "calm" within the US borders.

Much like the police. A police department's job is to maintain the civil order within its jurisdiction. A police department exists for the collective good, it does not exist for the individual good. That means, there will be times when it will be up to the individual to provide for his own safety until the police can respond.

That is what the sheriff in Milwaukee County is saying.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 124):
However, with the advent of democracy, every American (absent the black & native populations, of course) now has a vote

Excuse me?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3035 posts, RR: 1
Reply 126, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2479 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 117):
CXfirst; I like Norway; I think your country is beautiful, (although I've never been there) I think you flag is beautiful; I often "root" for your athletes in the Olympics. But I must tell you; our countries are very different; what "works" in one, will not necessarily "work" in the other; I live in a very small village; we have a very good all-volunteer fire department, and the fire house is only half a mile from my house; my house, my next door neighbor's house, and about five more neighbors around me, never have any "problems" with burglars or thieves; mainly because we ALL have shot guns, rifles, and hand guns to protect our property; and we are ALL quite legal in doing it. It's fine to be "prepared", to have "alarms"; I have two very good "alarms".......(their names are "Steamer" and "Blackie", and they usually sleep on the front porch; we also have a VERY good Sheriff's Department, and the Sheriff is a very good friend; we also have something else that many counties around the country DON'T have; we have a county prosecutor, and a county judge who are NOT sympathetic to "perps", burglars, home-invaders, or other "riff raft"; around here, those types are on VERY dangerous ground; ( which is one reason we don't have many problems with them ) I'm looking forward to seeing you in Sochi !

You'd be surprised at how similar our situation is.

I currently live in Australia, but have lived in the UK, Indonesia, Malaysia and Norway, and go back to my home town in Norway at least once a year, sometimes twice.

My hometown in Norway is a village of 300 people, with an all-volunteer fire department. We do have a local cop, lensmann, as we call it. Officially works for the district, but is based out of his home in our town and covers a few villages around the area. Sound familiar?

There are plenty of people who enjoy hunting, and a lot of them having hunting rifles, some have a form of shotgun for hunting as well. The guns are heavily regulated and are very restricted, with frequent checks to their safe storage, etc. So most are locked in a basement or attic, and not "under the pillow".

Yet, in a scenario as seemingly similar to what you expect, I have never heard of anyone in my village or the villages around ever answering the door with their gun in hand, never needing to bring a gun out, and never regretting not having a gun in hand. Sure there have been robberies, no place is immune to that, but never in that area have the robberies been violent, never armed, mainly due to 3 reasons in my opinion.

1. Difficulty to get a weapon, especially one suited for robbery (hunting rifle isn't exactly ideal).
2. The severe punishment an armed robbery gets in contrast to an unarmed robbery.
3. The lack of need for a weapon as robbers don't feel they need one to protect themselves.

It is the US mentality of point 3 that I believe shapes the issue at hand.

In Norway, a robber doesn't bring a gun to a normal robbery, as he feels there isn't a need for that. The house may get robbed, but there are no severe injuries or deaths. In the US, the mentality is that having a gun will protect me from the robbery, but where in real life, all that does is make the robber more anxious, more willing to commit an armed robbery in fear of retaliation from the home owner. Now you have two opposing parties both armed, and it is no wonder the statistics for gun-related deaths are so high, and thats not counting the accidental deaths that also occur. Factors in a society will always come to robberies, but mentality determines what is brought to the robbery and how it is resolved.

I would be willing to bet that if I was robbed by an armed robber, I would simply be robbed if I was unarmed, or either killed or successfully defended my home if I was armed, and I would rather be robbed 10 times than successfully defended my home 9 and killed the 10th.

It's the mentality of the US that makes things difficult. And I understand the fear that if people gave up their guns, only criminals would be left with them. But as I see it, that still creates a safer outcome, where criminals don't feel threatened enough to kill, and a situation where it gets easier for police to take down criminals, as simply the act of having a gun puts you in their targets.

I just want to add, that about 5 years ago, an event in my village, in fact my extended family, faced national media, a hunting accident ended in the death of a woman, when the shooter mistakenly thought she was behind him rather than just beyond the crescent of a hill. This resulted in small debates of whether there are too many hunting weapons around Norway, if there was adequate training and enough follow up. This was from a simple hunting accident, yet I feel that this wouldn't even feature in local news in the US, and that is what really screams to me that something is terribly wrong.

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 127, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2473 times:

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 126):
It's the mentality of the US that makes things difficult. And I understand the fear that if people gave up their guns, only criminals would be left with them. But as I see it, that still creates a safer outcome, where criminals don't feel threatened enough to kill, and a situation where it gets easier for police to take down criminals, as simply the act of having a gun puts you in their targets.

There is a different mentality, that's true. But that mentality has been going on for 250+ years now, and changing it is going to be very hard. Let's say, for sake of argument, that we did have the sort of gun control that Norway does - eventually I do believe that burglars would stop carrying guns themselves for the reasons that you described, but it would take many decades for that to happen, and in the meantime people wouldn't be able to defend themselves.

The US mentality is still compatible with a peaceful society, if we can stop the people who shouldn't be having guns from getting them. The problem is that while we know, for the most part, who the people we don't want getting guns are, there are too many legal means for them to obtain guns without us stopping them. That's got to change.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12345 posts, RR: 25
Reply 128, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2456 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 115):
Well, don't you think cops are going need a lot more training since it's kinda their job to go into dangerous situations all the time?

Unless you think relying on "beginner's luck" is a good idea, I'd say they need similar amounts of training.

Should we dig up the thread here on the guy in New Milford CT who killed his own son while trying to play policeman?

Hey, he was a fully trained security guard at least for a while before being a teacher for a few decades, so he's good to go, right?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 115):
Look, I think it's a terrible idea for Joe Blow to buy a gun, look up some tips on youtube, and consider himself good to go for defending everyone and being a hero, but I also don't think you need to be a full blown cop to:

1. know how to operate and maintain a gun
2. not point weapons at people
3. not putting your finger on the trigger when you're not pointing at a target
4. locking up your weapons when not in use (minus being out for defense)
5. not shooting at every shadow at night
6. if house is broken into, calling 911 and hiding with your gun instead of being Rambo
7. last and probably most importantly, just because you have a gun doesn't mean you need to use it

Yet we don't make it mandatory to have even this minimal amount of training to purchase a gun.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 115):

Now if everyone did that I guarantee you firearm "accidents" would sharply decline, kids wouldn't be shot by their parents in the middle of the night, "robberies that go bad" would happen a lot less, etc. You don't need to be a cop or infantryman to know how to use a gun, it's not something you need to train for years on, just some good solid training and common sense does the trick (oh, and a lot less hero/macho mentality)

The bottom line is that gun ownership has been pretty much 'self regulating' for years and the results aren't acceptable in my opinion and the opinion of more and more Americans.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 121):

Your statement about "gun owners"..........how about CAR owners ? do you think ALL "car owners" are "perfect" ? Do you think it's possible that a few my get drunk and KILL PEOPLE with their cars from time to time ? And do you think "banning cars" might solve that problem ?

No, because in general cars serve productive purposes like bringing people to jobs or schools and gathering necessities whereas guns in general don't, outside of the relatively rare case where people hunt for food.

On the other hand, we as a society are perfectly happy to have driving standards, driving tests, driver's licenses, car registration, procedures for transferring car ownership, car assessments, license plates, penalties for drunk driving, random road blocks, etc.

The reasons are the ones you give: cars are dangerous and people are human.

We think it's reasonable to have the ability to determine the history of the driver and the car when they've done something dangerous with it.

Guns, well, most everyone except the NRA leadership feels the situation needs to improve...



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 129, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2448 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 128):
Unless you think relying on "beginner's luck" is a good idea, I'd say they need similar amounts of training.

No, look, we have different standards for Army infantrymen, the SWAT team, a regular old cop, and an armed citizen. The armed citizen, like a normal cop, isn't going to be busting into a room full of AK-47s and RPKs, so they don't need MOUT training. Similarly, an armed citizen isn't responding to domestic violence situations or pulling potentially armed people over, so they don't need police training. Some training, yes, but let's not pretend that having a gun in your house requires you to go to the police academy

Quoting Revelation (Reply 128):
Should we dig up the thread here on the guy in New Milford CT who killed his own son while trying to play policeman?

Sure, bring it up. I'm sure we can find a few reasons why this guy was being an idiot and irresponsible. Do not know the details but I think the simple advice of "calling 911 and getting the family locked up in a room, and oh, not shooting at every shadow" would have worked

Quoting Revelation (Reply 128):
Yet we don't make it mandatory to have even this minimal amount of training to purchase a gun.

And if you have been following what I've been saying for months, you'd know that I'm all for some minimum training. Real minimum training, not getting your fingerprints recorded and you're good to go like in GA

Quoting Revelation (Reply 128):
The bottom line is that gun ownership has been pretty much 'self regulating' for years and the results aren't acceptable in my opinion and the opinion of more and more Americans.

And the results aren't acceptable to me, a gun owner. Difference is I think some measures can be put in place and cut down a lot of gun related deaths, I just don't think you need to go through the police academy or Ft Benning, GA to learn how to safely use a glock...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 130, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2448 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 128):
On the other hand, we as a society are perfectly happy to have driving standards, driving tests, driver's licenses, car registration, procedures for transferring car ownership, car assessments, license plates, penalties for drunk driving, random road blocks, etc.

these kind of things seem logical things to do with guns. Not sure why anyone could disagree but I'd like to hear any reasons.

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 126):
3. The lack of need for a weapon as robbers don't feel they need one to protect themselves.

the only thing that beats a good guy with a gun is.............?

Fred


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8792 posts, RR: 24
Reply 131, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2437 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 128):
Yet we don't make it mandatory to have even this minimal amount of training to purchase a gun.

Licensing the ownership of guns, thus putting into the hands of government the power to veto/control access to weapons by the citizenry, would be considered a direct affront to the 2nd amendment, which as the Founders said the main purpose of which was to prevent the government doing exactly that.

But I agree that such training should be made at least morally and ethically mandatory. And given that the NRA does provide that training at very reasonable cost through its affiliations, I would expect you to support their efforts by urging anyone considering owning a gun to attend NRA-approved training sessions.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 132, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2420 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 128):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 131):
Licensing the ownership of guns, thus putting into the hands of government the power to veto/control access to weapons by the citizenry, would be considered a direct affront to the 2nd amendment, which as the Founders said the main purpose of which was to prevent the government doing exactly that.

well they do that already by not allowing you to have fully automatic rifles so your point is kind of meaningless.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 131):
But I agree that such training should be made at least morally and ethically mandatory.

morally and ethically mandatory? LOL, what the fuck does that even mean? Do it if you think you need it? That's been working great so far.

I think they should just amend the amendment and bring it up to date. I think guns should still be allowed (even in more dangerous categories) but with relevant and enforceable laws and regulation.

Fred


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 133, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2417 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 131):
Licensing the ownership of guns, thus putting into the hands of government the power to veto/control access to weapons by the citizenry, would be considered a direct affront to the 2nd amendment,

We already do it. That's why people fail background checks. And the courts have said that that isn't an affront to the 2nd amendment.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 134, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2418 times:

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 122):
How on earth can you claim such a thing, much less grandstand on it.

I'm not "claiming" anything ! I'm merely "reporting" what a journalist who was THERE, happened to find out because he was trying to "find things out", rather than standing on a soap box all day, every day, (like about 4 o 5 people on this thread are doing at all times), trying to convince the world that THEY'RE right, and that everyone else is wrong. (much like you're doing right now, BTW.)

Quoting Revelation (Reply 128):
No, because in general cars serve productive purposes like bringing people to jobs or schools and gathering necessities whereas guns in general don't, outside of the relatively rare case where people hunt for food.

I'm well aware of all of the many benefits that cars offer, thank you. I'm ALSO aware of the very well documented FACT, that about a MILLION people in the U.S. DIE every year because about 2/3 of the people who own and drive cars these days are NOT responsible drivers, have absolutely NO concept of what "safe driving" even means, and couldn't care less if they did ! THEY are all too "busy" trying to operate the little teenie weenie numbers on their cell phones, in order to send pointless, un-necessary, and in many places, ILLEGAL "text messages" to some other irresponsible person such as themselves; in the meantime, they cause thousands of fatalities every single week, (while you spend all YOUR free time attempting to convince ME, that I should not be allowed to legally carry a weapon to defend myself from the ever increasing numbers of violent criminals who are running around robbing people and also shooting many of them "just for the fun of it" ! I should also point out that your chances of success are somewhat less than zero.

Maybe if you concentrated all of your efforts on attempting to do something about all of the many fatalities occurring each day because of the things I've just mentioned, you just might be able to "make a difference"; as it is, all you're doing, is wasting you time ! ( plus that of a few more responsible gun owners in this "discussion" )

Quoting Revelation (Reply 128):
On the other hand, we as a society are perfectly happy to have driving standards, driving tests, driver's licenses, car registration, procedures for transferring car ownership, car assessments, license plates, penalties for drunk driving, random road blocks, etc.

.......................................................(BTW.....I think there may be too many "S"s in the word above ?)

I'm in favor of every one of those things; mainly because I comply with every driving law there is, including all speed limit laws; BTW.......speaking of which.......I hear a lot about "minorities" these "politically correct" days; I "feel" like a "minority".....as a matter of fact, I AM a "minority" every time I drive on ANY in interstate highway these days, because I'm ALWAYS the only driver out of all that are out there, who is driving the speed limit. Perhaps you can allocate a bit of your free time to "looking into" that problem for me, and for what few other responsible drivers there seems to be "these days" ?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 128):
Hey, he was a fully trained security guard at least for a while before being a teacher for a few decades, so he's good to go, right?

Your assertion that the individual was "fully trained" is completely meaningless; the New York City Cops who SHOT a bunch of "by-standers", (while "missing" all of the "perps") were "supposed" to be "fully trained" also; apparently, their "training" was sadly lacking !

While you seem to be making so many "assumptions" here, I think it's only fair that I should be able to make one also; I'm going to "assume", that right here, on this discussion on the Non-Aviation forum of Airliners.net, that there are at the very least, SOME members who, if they were to compete in a pistol competition with members of the NYC Police Department, would almost certainly make many of "New York's Finest" look like a bunch of teen-age girls (that didn't know which end of the pistol to put the bullets in) ! (But that's just an "assumption"; I doubt that we'll be able to arrange the necessary competition to prove my assumption is correct.)

To sum all of this up, in spite of the well documented FACT that the numbers of people who are killed every DAY in needless traffic CRASHES, ( not "accidents"-----"crashes" ) is far in excess of the numbers of victims of gun violence, you are still willing to ignore those victims, concentrating instead on attempting to deprive law-abiding citizens of THEIR right to defend themselves.

And that will conclude your "GUN RIGHTS" seminar for the day. (or at least until after the Super Bowl)

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5359 posts, RR: 14
Reply 135, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2413 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 133):
We already do it. That's why people fail background checks. And the courts have said that that isn't an affront to the 2nd amendment.


No, actually, we don't. The background check is not a license. The NICS background check confirms that the purchaser is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm under USC. Once the background check is completed, the seller (an FFL) maintains a copy of Form 4473. As I understand it, the government does not get a copy of that form without cause (a warrant) until the FFL retires.

Now, I'm not opposed, as I've said before, to ensuring that all private transactions be recorded by a Form 4473 (or equivalent), with a suitable background check, so long as the requirement is not burdensome.

That means that, among other things, every state will have to become a subscriber to the NICS system.

[Edited 2013-02-03 10:51:02]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8792 posts, RR: 24
Reply 136, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2409 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 132):
well they do that already by not allowing you to have fully automatic rifles so your point is kind of meaningless.

Strictly speaking I would consider that a violation of the 2nd amendment, but it has been accepted as reasonable - should private individuals be allowed to own functional fighter jets and nuclear weapons? of course not. A reasonable line has been established.

Quoting Mir (Reply 133):
We already do it. That's why people fail background checks. And the courts have said that that isn't an affront to the 2nd amendment.

No, because it falls under the fifth amendment, whereby certain rights can be rescinded - for cause and with due process. If you have a history of violence or criminality, you lose many of the rights you would otherwise have - up to and including your freedom and your life in extreme cases.

By the way I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of background checks and of closing all loopholes.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 137, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2391 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 125):
Yes, everyone, collectively, not individually. By the way, the US military does not, except under federal emergency powers (and then it's usually the National Guard at the request of a Governor) operate to maintain the "calm" within the US borders.

Of course. The US Army will protect Americans by defending sovereignty at the border, not necessarily within America itself -- unless you happen to get invaded by drunken Canadian hockey fans. I am aware of the "Posse Comitatus" issue.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 125):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 124):
However, with the advent of democracy, every American (absent the black & native populations, of course) now has a vote

Excuse me?

Should have been clearer, my apologies. But at the time of writing of the Constitution, blacks, Indians, and I guess some other minorities, did not have the vote. At least as I understand it. If wrong, please illuminate me.

Look, don't think I'm trying to "paint" America with that statement, Canada has its' own "walk of shame" as well. Slavery existed here in two provinces (Nova Scotia and New Brunswick) until 1830. Granted we were a British colony at that point, but still it existed. There was also official discrimination against Chinese and Indian immigrants well into the 1930s. And then of course there has been the government policy over many generations on relations with the various First Nations groups. What a mess. Our "picture perfect" image is just that: an image. Many Canadians like to delude themselves and refuse to face the facts.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 138, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2390 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 136):
reasonable line has been established

but surely that line can be redrawn to keep pace with societal changes?

Fred


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8792 posts, RR: 24
Reply 139, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2371 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 138):
but surely that line can be redrawn to keep pace with societal changes?

Hence the ban on privately owned nuclear weapons...

Seriously. Machine guns have been banned from private usage since 1930. What's left are semi-autos - i.e. guns which fire once each time you pull the trigger until the gun is empty. Pretty much every handgun produced in the past 150 years qualifies. Should we be limited to single-shot weapons? Hell no - what if you miss? Unless you are a top notch shooter, you are unlikely to hit your target on the first shot when the adrenalin is pumping and you are in fear for your life. That's just human nature.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 140, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2359 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 135):
The background check is not a license.

It is, for all intents and purposes. There is no fundamental difference between having to pass a background check and the government issuing a license if certain criteria are met. The only real difference is in which criteria are used. And there the courts do have say.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 136):
No, because it falls under the fifth amendment, whereby certain rights can be rescinded - for cause and with due process.

Is a licensing procedure not due process?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5359 posts, RR: 14
Reply 141, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2357 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 137):
Of course. The US Army will protect Americans by defending sovereignty at the border, not necessarily within America itself -- unless you happen to get invaded by drunken Canadian hockey fans. I am aware of the "Posse Comitatus" issue.


The point I was making, and expanded it to the police, is that state protects us collectively, not individually. The police protect us all by maintaining order and removing criminals from society (with due process) after they commit a crime. But, we should not be under the illusion that the police can protect us individually.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5359 posts, RR: 14
Reply 142, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2349 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 140):
It is, for all intents and purposes. There is no fundamental difference between having to pass a background check and the government issuing a license if certain criteria are met. The only real difference is in which criteria are used. And there the courts do have say.

Except that a license provides the government (and any other interested parties with the ability) a list of people who may be exercising their Second Amendment rights. It's a small, but very real difference.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 143, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2341 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 139):

That's all very well but what about the question posed?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 142):
Except that a license provides the government (and any other interested parties with the ability) a list of people who may be exercising their Second Amendment rights. It's a small, but very real difference.

but surely this applies?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 136):
because it falls under the fifth amendment, whereby certain rights can be rescinded - for cause and with due process.

Are the government not to know what their people are doing?

Fred