Viewing 11 reply threads

  • Author

    Posts

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      when there is a backlash .  . . look back on stuff like this:Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal will sign a new gun law into effect today that greatly expands the number of public places where licensed owners are allowed to carry their weapons. Critics have called the law “extreme,” while the National Rifle Association lauded it as an “historic victory for the Second Amendment. What does the Safe Carry Protection Act really do? Here’s a brief list of the major changes ahead for Georgians when the law takes effect July 1: 1) Bars Before the new law, gun owners were not allowed to bring their firearms into bars unless the bar owner specifically allowed it. But under the Safe Carry Protection Act, the emphasis is reversed. A patron can bring guns into bars unless the owner tells him or her to leave.2) ChurchesChurch leaders will now be able to decide whether to allow their congregations to bring guns into their buildings. Right now, bringing guns into houses of worship is illegal. Under the Safe Carry Protection Act, if a gun license holder brings a gun into church against the wishes of that church’s leaders, the gun owner will be fined $100. If a non-license holder brings a gun to that same church, he or she will be guilty of a misdemeanor.3) Schools Local school boards will now be allowed to vote on whether they want to let teachers and other members of the school’s staff bring guns to campus. The staff members will apply to the school board, and they will go through training that includes “judgment pistol shooting,” “marksmanship,” and a review of Georgia’s laws about shooting people to defend yourself and others. If a teacher doesn’t want to carry the gun at all times, he or she will have to store it in a safe or lock box. Previously, a licensed owner could bring a gun to school if an “authorized official of the school” gave permission.4) AirportsLicensed gun owners will be allowed to have firearms in airport common areas and if they accidentally bring their guns to airport security checkpoints, they will be allowed to pick up their weapon and leave without criminal penalty. They will not, of course, be able to take their gun past the TSA checkpoint, which remains a federal matter.5) Government buildingsLicensed gun owners will be allowed to bring their weapons into unsecured government buildings -- in other words, those buildings that don't have security checkpoints or metal detectors. Supporters say this provision was intended to help rural counties that don't have the funds to hire full-time security personnel. Gun owners still won't be able to bring weapons into, say, Atlanta City Hall or the Georgia State Capitol.6) No database of gun ownersThe law will prevent the state of Georgia from creating and maintaining a database of licensed owners.7) No fingerprintingThe law will eliminate the fingerprinting requirement for renewing weapons carry licenses.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 975

      And what do you see as wrong in any of these changes?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3341

      How many threads is it now on a subject no one else is interested in attempting to discuss with him, started solely for the purpose of provoking an emotional response? Stupid bastard doesn't even realize he's a troll.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      How many threads is it now on a subject no one else is interested in attempting to discuss with him, started solely for the purpose of provoking an emotional response? Stupid bastard doesn't even realize he's a troll.

      again, take that statement as true and then ask why you are here? I am sorry I have so much control over you Buggsy . . .

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      And what do you see as wrong in any of these changes?

      well, the NRA approach is "the only way to stop an armed bad guy is with an armed good guy."  That is an obvious approach for selling a lot of guns, but makes no sense short of a mandatory armed populace . . .  because guns often turn non-fatal conflicts into death . .  and we all know there's never any ill-advised conflict at a bar . . . . guns also make killers into mass killers . .  .  so inviting guns into densely populated spaces,probably not a good thing . .  . and guns even turn law-abiding citizens into killers in moments of passion (see Tampa Movie Shooter) . . . so .. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 975

      And what do you see as wrong in any of these changes?

      well, the NRA approach is "the only way to stop an armed bad guy is with an armed good guy."  That is an obvious approach for selling a lot of guns, but makes no sense short of a mandatory armed populace . . .  because guns often turn non-fatal conflicts into death . .  and we all know there's never any ill-advised conflict at a bar . . . . guns also make killers into mass killers . .  .  so inviting guns into densely populated spaces,probably not a good thing . .  . and guns even turn law-abiding citizens into killers in moments of passion (see Tampa Movie Shooter) . . . so ..

      I understand you have a woody on the NRA and because they support something you oppose.I am also somewhat on-board with the bar thing, that is the Law in Florida right now (no guns in bars), plus guns and alcohol don't strike me as a particularly good idea. But I also relate to the perspective that the owner should have that choice. Another aspect of that is my wife carries, pretty much all the time. Let's say I call and say I need a ride and she walks in and shouts "honey". In Florida she gets arrested if caught.  Maybe some flexibility? The rest is just common sense to me. The only thing that could be construed as controversial is the schools. But even that, shouldn't school boards have the right to make that decision? What if a teacher is an experienced Vet or ex Police Officer. Should they not at least have the option of adding an additional layer of security?This making schools gun free zones per se  (outside of students) to me is dumb. If the events of the last couple of years have taught us anything, it is that gun free zones prevents no-one that has the intent of coming in and doing harm, from doing harm. While not advocating that every man and his dog be armed, knowing that some staff may be armed would not only be a deterrent by itself, but may buy time for the cops to get there should a tragedy occur.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      And what do you see as wrong in any of these changes?

      well, the NRA approach is "the only way to stop an armed bad guy is with an armed good guy."  That is an obvious approach for selling a lot of guns, but makes no sense short of a mandatory armed populace . . .  because guns often turn non-fatal conflicts into death . .  and we all know there's never any ill-advised conflict at a bar . . . . guns also make killers into mass killers . .  .  so inviting guns into densely populated spaces,probably not a good thing . .  . and guns even turn law-abiding citizens into killers in moments of passion (see Tampa Movie Shooter) . . . so ..

      I understand you have a woody on the NRA and because they support something you oppose.I am also somewhat on-board with the bar thing, that is the Law in Florida right now (no guns in bars), plus guns and alcohol don't strike me as a particularly good idea. But I also relate to the perspective that the owner should have that choice. Another aspect of that is my wife carries, pretty much all the time. Let's say I call and say I need a ride and she walks in and shouts "honey". In Florida she gets arrested if caught.  Maybe some flexibility? The rest is just common sense to me. The only thing that could be construed as controversial is the schools. But even that, shouldn't school boards have the right to make that decision? What if a teacher is an experienced Vet or ex Police Officer. Should they not at least have the option of adding an additional layer of security?This making schools gun free zones per se  (outside of students) to me is dumb. If the events of the last couple of years have taught us anything, it is that gun free zones prevents no-one that has the intent of coming in and doing harm, from doing harm. While not advocating that every man and his dog be armed, knowing that some staff may be armed would not only be a deterrent by itself, but may buy time for the cops to get there should a tragedy occur.

      Great point Spartan.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Gun free zones at schools are just politics, creating the appearance of doing something. With the possible exception of keeping a kid from bringing a gun to school as a toy, it’s basically meaningless. I am for the Wayne Plan – armed guards at schools – but that must be paid for by a tax on guns and bullets. I am not against thing just because the NRA is for it (see my comment about the Wayne Plan. I dislike the NRA because it is dishonest. Claiming the 2nd Am as motivation when it gun makers sales that motivate.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 975

      Gun free zones at schools are just politics, creating the appearance of doing something. With the possible exception of keeping a kid from bringing a gun to school as a toy, it's basically meaningless. I am for the Wayne Plan - armed guards at schools - but that must be paid for by a tax on guns and bullets.

      A tax on something, not just guns. Funding something from a single source is a single point of failure. Plus guns are not the only thing that puts children in danger. Knifes, pedophiles for example.Might be something worth putting on the ballot box and letting the people decide.

      I am not against thing just because the NRA is for it (see my comment about the Wayne Plan. I dislike the NRA because it is dishonest. Claiming the 2nd Am as motivation when it gun makers sales that motivate.

      That's the reasons debates exist, people have different opinions :)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Gun free zones at schools are just politics, creating the appearance of doing something. With the possible exception of keeping a kid from bringing a gun to school as a toy, it's basically meaningless. I am for the Wayne Plan - armed guards at schools - but that must be paid for by a tax on guns and bullets.

      A tax on something, not just guns. Funding something from a single source is a single point of failure. Plus guns are not the only thing that puts children in danger. Knifes, pedophiles for example.Might be something worth putting on the ballot box and letting the people decide.

      The "proximate cause" for Wayne's plan is GUNS.  The NRA says the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.  Wayne's plan was ONLY about guns.  Yes, you can harm children in other ways, but Wayne's Plan is about GUNS and only guns, so the tax should be on guns and bullets only ESPECIALLY when you consider that Wayne offered his plan as an alternative to gun restrictions he does not like.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I am not against thing just because the NRA is for it (see my comment about the Wayne Plan. I dislike the NRA because it is dishonest. Claiming the 2nd Am as motivation when it gun makers sales that motivate.

      That's the reasons debates exist, people have different opinions :)

      Wayne's comments are not his opinion, that is my point. Wayne's opinion on the efficacy of universal background checks did not change, the desires of his constituents changed. Wayne is ADVOCATING (not offering an opinion) to advance the interests of his constituents, which are GUN SELLERS.  Wayne is advocating for gun seller PROFITS, not offering an opinion and certainly not an opinion aligned with the majority of gun owners:Here are five key issues that divide the LaPierres at the top of the NRA food chain from their 3 million (or 4 million, depending upon the press release that day) members:1. Gun Show LoopholeCurrently, in over 30 states, one can walk into a local gun show and purchase a weapon from a “private seller,” who does not have to conduct any kind of background check. For example, a .50 caliber sniper rifle, which can take down a helicopter. The NRA has fought to block any and all efforts to pass a federal law closing this infamous gun show loophole, as well as any efforts in the states. (But remember, they are anti-crime!)Timothy McVeigh was once one of these “private sellers” on the gun-show circuit, and everyone from the Columbine killers to members of Hezbollah have obtained firearms this way. Not surprisingly, just like most other sentient beings (including 85% of gun owners not in the NRA), 69% of NRA members, when polled by conservative Republican Frank Luntz, think this loophole should be closed.2. Terror GapIf you are put on the U.S. terror watch list you cannot board an airplane. You can, however, still purchase guns and explosives. According to the Government Accountability Office, “From February 2004 through February 2010, 1,228 individuals on the watch list underwent background checks to purchase firearms or explosives; 1,119, or 91 percent, of these transactions were approved.”NRA members understand this even if their leadership stubbornly tries to protect the gun-ownership rights of terrorists (but they’re patriots, I tell you!). Eighty-two percent of NRA members think this gap should be closed.3. Tiahrt AmendmentsNamed in honor of all-around clod, former Kansas Republican Congressman Todd Tiahrt, this is part of the NRA’s constant effort to hamper, harass and harangue any government effort to get to the bottom of how guns came to be used in a crime. These amendments, attached to federal spending bills, do their best to severely limit law enforcement’s ability to access, use and share data that helps them enforce federal, state and local gun laws.Not surprisingly, while these are a big hit at NRA HQ and among those members of Congress so graced with their campaign contributions, 69% of their own members have come to the logical conclusion that this is a pretty bad idea, as have 74% of non-NRA gun owners who think there should be no barriers to information-sharing between federal agencies and police when it comes to gun crimes.4. Reporting Lost and Stolen GunsSupporting provisions requiring this would seem to be only common sense. But there is not much of that present among the NRA’s leadership. For example, the NRA has not only fought all efforts to make reporting lost or stolen guns to the police a requirement, but in Pennsylvania, where scores of cities and townships have picked up the slack by passing these measures themselves, the fine Americans and conservative-lawsuit-abuse haters at the NRA have actually threatened to sue to overturn these laws. Yes, you read that correctly, our friends who love state and local rights when it comes to allowing a kid to stay on their parent’s healthcare policy until they are 26, don’t feel so much the same way about guns.NRA members would seem to disagree: 78% of them think this provision would be a good idea, as do 88% of non-NRA gun owners.5. Sharing Records With National Instant Background Check System (NICS)The Fix Gun Checks Act, modeled on ideas developed by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, was introduced in the wake of the carnage at Tucson by, among others, Senator Chuck Schumer in March 2011. Besides closing the gun-show loophole (see #1), it also sought to fix a huge problem in the current federal background check system–a lax attitude by many states and some federal institutions in sharing records of those ineligible to buy firearms due to criminal record or mental health defects.For example, Seung-Hui Cho, the mass murderer at Virginia Tech, had been declared mentally unfit by a judge in Virginia, and Jared Loughner had been rejected by the military for admitted drug use. Both of these men never should have been able to get anywhere near buying a gun legally. But these records were never shared.The Fix Gun Checks Act would provide both incentives and penalties to states so that all these records are shared in as timely a manner as possible. But NRA leadership has gone to war with this bill, as with all other efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unfit. Yet, a poll of swing-state voters taken around the time the bill was introduced showed overwhelming support for this concept among gun owners. In Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, Arizona and (most ironically, and sadly) Colorado, more than 82% of gun owners believed states should be fully funded in their efforts to share these records, while 91% supported requiring federal agencies to share information on potentially dangerous persons such as Loughner.So there you have it. Five measures, none of which would violate the very broad reading of the Second Amendment recently given by ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia; all of which would have an immediate impact in terms of making our families safer, in a country where 34 people are murdered by guns every day–or one Virginia Tech every single day of the year.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 975

      Here are five key issues that divide the LaPierres at the top of the NRA food chain from their 3 million (or 4 million, depending upon the press release that day) members:1. Gun Show LoopholeCurrently, in over 30 states, one can walk into a local gun show and purchase a weapon from a “private seller,” who does not have to conduct any kind of background check. For example, a .50 caliber sniper rifle, which can take down a helicopter. The NRA has fought to block any and all efforts to pass a federal law closing this infamous gun show loophole, as well as any efforts in the states. (But remember, they are anti-crime!)Timothy McVeigh was once one of these “private sellers” on the gun-show circuit, and everyone from the Columbine killers to members of Hezbollah have obtained firearms this way. Not surprisingly, just like most other sentient beings (including 85% of gun owners not in the NRA), 69% of NRA members, when polled by conservative Republican Frank Luntz, think this loophole should be closed.

      There is no gunshow loophole. You neighbor could be a "private seller". Let's call it what it is and that the ban of all private sales of firearms. Then try selling on that. Not sure the support would be so strong then. There are pros and cons on both sides of the arguments here and I can see both. The "fixes" put forward thus far though have been to me woefully inadequate or poorly thought out.

      2. Terror GapIf you are put on the U.S. terror watch list you cannot board an airplane. You can, however, still purchase guns and explosives. According to the Government Accountability Office, “From February 2004 through February 2010, 1,228 individuals on the watch list underwent background checks to purchase firearms or explosives; 1,119, or 91 percent, of these transactions were approved.”NRA members understand this even if their leadership stubbornly tries to protect the gun-ownership rights of terrorists (but they’re patriots, I tell you!). Eighty-two percent of NRA members think this gap should be closed.

      Sounds great in theory, and I am supportive, however I am also pretty confident the SC would tear this apart in a nano second! What about planes? you ask. Good point, but they are not protected by the Constitution.

      3. Tiahrt AmendmentsNamed in honor of all-around clod, former Kansas Republican Congressman Todd Tiahrt, this is part of the NRA’s constant effort to hamper, harass and harangue any government effort to get to the bottom of how guns came to be used in a crime. These amendments, attached to federal spending bills, do their best to severely limit law enforcement’s ability to access, use and share data that helps them enforce federal, state and local gun laws.Not surprisingly, while these are a big hit at NRA HQ and among those members of Congress so graced with their campaign contributions, 69% of their own members have come to the logical conclusion that this is a pretty bad idea, as have 74% of non-NRA gun owners who think there should be no barriers to information-sharing between federal agencies and police when it comes to gun crimes.

      These are the amendments:1. Prohibit the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from releasing firearm trace data for use by cities, states, researchers, litigants and members of the public;2. Require the Federal Bureau of Investigation to destroy all approved gun purchaser records within 24 hours; and3. Prohibit ATF from requiring gun dealers to submit their inventories to law enforcement.1. Litigants and members of the public? Really?2. On board with this one because I do not believe in a national firearms register, which this would be in all but name.3. Ever heard of a warrant and the Constitution? The 4th Amendment ring any bells?

      4. Reporting Lost and Stolen GunsSupporting provisions requiring this would seem to be only common sense. But there is not much of that present among the NRA’s leadership. For example, the NRA has not only fought all efforts to make reporting lost or stolen guns to the police a requirement, but in Pennsylvania, where scores of cities and townships have picked up the slack by passing these measures themselves, the fine Americans and conservative-lawsuit-abuse haters at the NRA have actually threatened to sue to overturn these laws. Yes, you read that correctly, our friends who love state and local rights when it comes to allowing a kid to stay on their parent’s healthcare policy until they are 26, don’t feel so much the same way about guns.NRA members would seem to disagree: 78% of them think this provision would be a good idea, as do 88% of non-NRA gun owners.

      Sounds good in theory, and most people with an ounce of common sense would report lost or stolen firearms. But what if you did not realize it was lost or stolen and the Cops knocked on your door 2 years later? Now I am all for personal responsibility etc, but where is the line drawn?And let's face it, if people need to be reminded not to use an iron when they are wearing the item, just how long do you think this will last?

      5. Sharing Records With National Instant Background Check System (NICS)The Fix Gun Checks Act, modeled on ideas developed by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, was introduced in the wake of the carnage at Tucson by, among others, Senator Chuck Schumer in March 2011. Besides closing the gun-show loophole (see #1), it also sought to fix a huge problem in the current federal background check system–a lax attitude by many states and some federal institutions in sharing records of those ineligible to buy firearms due to criminal record or mental health defects.For example, Seung-Hui Cho, the mass murderer at Virginia Tech, had been declared mentally unfit by a judge in Virginia, and Jared Loughner had been rejected by the military for admitted drug use. Both of these men never should have been able to get anywhere near buying a gun legally. But these records were never shared.The Fix Gun Checks Act would provide both incentives and penalties to states so that all these records are shared in as timely a manner as possible. But NRA leadership has gone to war with this bill, as with all other efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unfit. Yet, a poll of swing-state voters taken around the time the bill was introduced showed overwhelming support for this concept among gun owners. In Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, Arizona and (most ironically, and sadly) Colorado, more than 82% of gun owners believed states should be fully funded in their efforts to share these records, while 91% supported requiring federal agencies to share information on potentially dangerous persons such as Loughner.

      I would have to see the details. Sounds reasonable (for the most part) in theory, but the implementation could be fraught with danger. Privacy issues for one. The Federal Govt can't share toilet paper in a fair and efficient manner and they want them to share medical and other records? Jeez they can't build a freakin' website for crying out loud!!  Worth looking at but not confident.

      So there you have it. Five measures, none of which would violate the very broad reading of the Second Amendment recently given by ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia; all of which would have an immediate impact in terms of making our families safer, in a country where 34 people are murdered by guns every day–or one Virginia Tech every single day of the year.

      I wasn't just ripping all your ideas, though I was some of them. But for the most part just pointing out that what sounds great on paper might not be so hot in practice. Details, details, details.

      Please wait…

Viewing 11 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.