Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Background checks are being used right now to identify the mandatory registration hold outs in Connecticut who will now have their guns confiscated.
So what? I wish someone had confiscated Lanza's guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yakscsd
Now I understand why you would hit that guy.
I am a big gun buff. I have a significant collection and I often carry both open and concealed. I buy or sell guns nearly every month. In no way do I feel that a background check in any way damages my 2nd amendment rights. IMO, responsible gun owners will welcome the chance to be validated as not a threat to society. Will it catch every criminal? Of course not, but it will stop some. That alone is reason enough for me to have a minor inconvenience.
<Slow clap> Thank you. Logic and reason where there seems to be none. This new "jump the shark" reaction of late that says everyone gets guns because it's in the Constitution, regardless of what a background check might find is an overreaction the same way laws like Stand Your Ground could potentially get the ex-cop who shot a guy in a theater over texting acquitted.
I'm not a fan of guns and I get why some want them but the NRA has turned gun rights into a symbol as meaningless as a flag pin. Wayne LaPierre's response to Newtown was to arm the teachers and, hey, why not arm the students too? An AR-15 in every garage does not make you more patriotic. Connecticut's reaction after Newtown sounds like what anyone would expect after losing twenty kindergarteners. Background checks are not the enemy.
They were his mother's guns stolen from her after he killed her.
Actually, his mother purchased his guns for him, while knowing full well how mentally disturbed he was.
All five guns that he possessed were bought by her, along with the large supply of ammunition.She also bought him all the weapons in his cult collection of swords and such. She was the perfect buyer: a respectable citizen, no criminal record, possessor of a pistol permit. She kept on buying him guns up to the very end. Even though tension had been building up, in December 2012, just before he shot her, she wrote a check for him to buy a pistol as a Christmas present.
He was emotionally indifferent to his mother but she knew how much he loved guns as she had started taking him to the shooting range at age four. I won't paraphrase the whole article but if you read it you will see that the signs were all there. If we as a society had a clear and well-repeated understanding that guns are a serious responsibility and not everyone should have them, maybe she would not have looked at gun purchases as a way to win her son's affection.
I am a big gun buff. I have a significant collection and I often carry both open and concealed. I buy or sell guns nearly every month. In no way do I feel that a background check in any way damages my 2nd amendment rights. IMO, responsible gun owners will welcome the chance to be validated as not a threat to society. Will it catch every criminal? Of course not, but it will stop some. That alone is reason enough for me to have a minor inconvenience.
I'm glad you have so much trust for your government that has broken the laws and violated our Constitution. BTW, Murder is illegal, so has it stopped people from killing people? There is no way to prevent every criminal from getting a gun illegally. You really are quite naive if you think the gun registration will save any lives . The only thing it will achieve is that the government will have tabs on every single gun in the hand of every law abiding citizen if the time arises for a global gun confiscation. Obama, himself, said he could issue an Executive Order in times of Crisis which would give him power to "temporarily" confiscate guns in time of emergency. This is our criminal government's way of circumventing the Constitution that was put in place to protect us from the type of government we have. If you don't believe me look back to Hurricane Katrina. I had a friend in the Marines (Marine Sergeant) who I use to shoot with, who was down there at the time. He told me the New Orleans police were rounding up guns and they would come to his unit and ask for assistance in rounding up guns. His officer told the New Orleans cops to go to h*ll and said they are on their own if they want to seize guns from law abiding citizens. Since it was a "State of Emergency" they were using the gun registration info of people as means to raid their houses and illegally seize guns from their property. The governor of the state of Louisiana felt he had the power that overrode the Constitution in the "time of crisis".
As far as me hitting the guy who blew pot smoke on my face, yeah I don't like people forcing drugs into my body. That is a form of assault , in itself. Sounds like you would be the kind of guy who would report your fellow citizen to a draconian government if they came to your house demanding your guns and to report all your neighbors /friends. After all, the government only has the best intentions in mind for the sake of "your security".
I can understand why you support forced gun registration, you are obedient to whatever the government says, because you don't have the courage to stand up for yourself.. I don't care that you own guns, that means nothing if you are not willing to stand up for your rights and defend our laws.
Nice to meet you, traitor.
BTW.. I put imbeciles like Yakscd on ignore.. They are just out to start trouble because they have nothing better to do with their sorry lives.
Last edited by RotseCherut; 03-27-2014 at 02:39 PM..
Actually, his mother purchased his guns for him, while knowing full well how mentally disturbed he was.
All five guns that he possessed were bought by her, along with the large supply of ammunition.She also bought him all the weapons in his cult collection of swords and such. She was the perfect buyer: a respectable citizen, no criminal record, possessor of a pistol permit. She kept on buying him guns up to the very end. Even though tension had been building up, in December 2012, just before he shot her, she wrote a check for him to buy a pistol as a Christmas present.
He was emotionally indifferent to his mother but she knew how much he loved guns as she had started taking him to the shooting range at age four. I won't paraphrase the whole article but if you read it you will see that the signs were all there. If we as a society had a clear and well-repeated understanding that guns are a serious responsibility and not everyone should have them, maybe she would not have looked at gun purchases as a way to win her son's affection.
I read these last two pages with amusement, but this post makes no sense at all. Are you arguing for tighter background checks, or random gun confiscation?
Because your previous arguments equating background checks and firearm restrictions for felons to taking away driver's licenses, etc, has nothing to do with this post. In no way would any kind of background check have altered Adam Lanza's ability to get those guns from his mother. Your own citation states that she was a law-abiding citizen.
Your true colors - supporting an outright gun ban - are showing through in this post.
And the liberals wonder why pro-gun-rights people are so afraid of how far the gun-control-crowd wants to go...
Given that Lanza and his mom had NRA certs, perhaps the organization could include some 'training' that asks critical questions like "Are you or any of your household members suffering from severe mental disturbances? Do you have any precautions in place to prevent them from accessing firearms in the event of a psychological break?" That seems like common sense, but apparently not.
FWIW, I bet whatever insurance company the Lanza's used is wishing they had some way to quantify and price the risk associated with insuring people that stupid. Thanks to NRA lobbying insurance companies aren't allowed to use possession of firearms in their determination of premiums. Look at it this way, if the Lanza's were forced to carry heavy insurance commensurate with the risk they posed, perhaps they'd have thought twice about turning the family home into an arsenal of the sort they did.
I read these last two pages with amusement, but this post makes no sense at all. Are you arguing for tighter background checks, or random gun confiscation?
Because your previous arguments equating background checks and firearm restrictions for felons to taking away driver's licenses, etc, has nothing to do with this post. In no way would any kind of background check have altered Adam Lanza's ability to get those guns from his mother. Your own citation states that she was a law-abiding citizen.
Your true colors - supporting an outright gun ban - are showing through in this post.
And the liberals wonder why pro-gun-rights people are so afraid of how far the gun-control-crowd wants to go...
I was responding to the poster I quoted, who said Adam Lanza stole his mother's guns. He didn't. She bought him several. She was a big gun lover too, and apparently didn't connect that the son she openly admitted was mentally unstable, was a danger to her and others with a gun. It is this "all or nothing" mentality where reason and logic have been abandoned in the name of "freedom". I'm sure his mother probably spoke like some posters here and she paid with her life.
Yes, she could buy them legally and her choice was to give these same guns to a son who locked himself in his room, blacked out his windows, would let no one enter his room while he played violent video games and collected media on mass killings 24 hours a day.
If you view a measured approach to guns as "supporting an outright gun ban" then you're part of the problem.
I was responding to the poster I quoted, who said Adam Lanza stole his mother's guns. He didn't. She bought him several. She was a big gun lover too, and apparently didn't connect that the son she openly admitted was mentally unstable, was a danger to her and others with a gun. It is this "all or nothing" mentality where reason and logic have been abandoned in the name of "freedom". I'm sure his mother probably spoke like some posters here and she paid with her life.
Yes, she could buy them legally and her choice was to give these same guns to a son who locked himself in his room, blacked out his windows, would let no one enter his room while he played violent video games and collected media on mass killings 24 hours a day.
If you view a measured approach to guns as "supporting an outright gun ban" then you're part of the problem.
If they had just one armed person at that school , just ONE that school shooting may have been averted.. BUT NO!! Let's punish 100,000,000 gun owners ... How about the next time a driver using a cell phone or is drunk rams into a car , killing an entire family including children occurs, we enforce a cell phone or alcohol registration program where everyone who uses a cell phone must first have the call registered and approved by the government.. Or, that beer you are drinking must first go through a federal government approval before you can buy it and consume it..
I a person is not allowed to possess a firearm, they have no business trying to acquire one illegally. Just like a person is not suppose to blabber on their cell phone while driving or drive drunk.. Trying to enforce draconian laws to protect a few hundred people a year will in the end result in abuses by the authoritarian powers who will end up using this legislation to murder many more innocent people.
Police states don't work!! But only naive people who receive their education from media brainwashing will believe they do!
I was responding to the poster I quoted, who said Adam Lanza stole his mother's guns. He didn't. She bought him several. She was a big gun lover too, and apparently didn't connect that the son she openly admitted was mentally unstable, was a danger to her and others with a gun. It is this "all or nothing" mentality where reason and logic have been abandoned in the name of "freedom". I'm sure his mother probably spoke like some posters here and she paid with her life.
Yes, she could buy them legally and her choice was to give these same guns to a son who locked himself in his room, blacked out his windows, would let no one enter his room while he played violent video games and collected media on mass killings 24 hours a day.
If you view a measured approach to guns as "supporting an outright gun ban" then you're part of the problem.
And how then, if you are not for a blanket gun ban, would you decide who is allowed to own a gun and who isn't?
If a parent has a "scary-looking kid", should that parent be banned from ever owning a gun?
Going back to your analogy about driver's licenses - should we be revoking driver's licenses from all the immediate family members of a person convicted of a DUI? Or should we just take the whole family's cars away - to make sure that the person convicted of DUI has no ability to get behind the wheel?
Can you please elaborate on this "measured approach to guns"? We have already established that you think much more than just background checks need to happen. Can you explain how you would approach the problem, if it is not an outright gun ban?
Earlier in this thread, I posted scientific results from the FBI that gun violence is on a sharp decline, despite record gun sales of late. Gun violence is GOING DOWN, no matter how much the liberal media loves to play-up the events like Newtown. So what is the end-result of your "measured approach"?
And how then, if you are not for a blanket gun ban, would you decide who is allowed to own a gun and who isn't?
Overdramatic much? Are you afraid you wouldn't pass a background check? Sounds like it.
If a parent has a "scary-looking kid", should that parent be banned from ever owning a gun?
Who said appearance had anything to do with it? How about demonstrated and medically diagnosed mental instability?
Going back to your analogy about driver's licenses - should we be revoking driver's licenses from all the immediate family members of a person convicted of a DUI? Or should we just take the whole family's cars away - to make sure that the person convicted of DUI has no ability to get behind the wheel?
Again with the drama. Driving was not my analogy, Rotse used driving and I said actually people do lose the right to drive.
Can you please elaborate on this "measured approach to guns"? We have already established that you think much more than just background checks need to happen. Can you explain how you would approach the problem, if it is not an outright gun ban?
Aren't background checks a measured approach? I'm sure there are responsible gun owners who would have suggestions but the most extreme tend to be the loudest.
Earlier in this thread, I posted scientific results from the FBI that gun violence is on a sharp decline, despite record gun sales of late. Gun violence is GOING DOWN, no matter how much the liberal media loves to play-up the events like Newtown. So what is the end-result of your "measured approach"?
So are you saying more guns equal less violence? Because Canada has far fewer guns and far less violence. Here's where you get all wound up again. I'm thinking it's a fear of background checks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's where you get all wound up again. I'm thinking it's a fear of background checks.
