Gun control nfw

I don't have a problem with the gun laws regarding full auto weapons. The 1934 law did not ban the ownwership of such weapons, but merely put qualifiers on them for ownership. The susequent laws regarding these weapons over the years still allow ownership as long as you can meet the qualifications and rightly so.
IMO, 90% of the population and I'm including gun owners have zero training with full auto weaponry. Then you throw in the loons who think it would be cool to have one and it is the making of a perfect storm. The NRA's stance indicates they have people in place with some common sense.

Please note, I am pro gun, have many, including class III, but I believe in regulation for these types of weapons. I know first hand what they can do.
 
THE PROBLEM ISN'T GUNS OR WHITE MEN
October 7, 2015
ANN COULTER

The media act as if they're performing a public service by refusing to release details about the perpetrator of the recent mass shooting at a community college in Oregon. But we were given plenty of information about Dylan Roof, Adam Lanza, James Holmes and Jared Loughner.


Now, quick: Name the mass shooters at the Chattanooga military recruitment center; the Washington Navy Yard; the high school in Washington state; Fort Hood (the second time) and the Christian college in California. All those shootings also occurred during the last three years.


The answers are: Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, Kuwaiti; Aaron Alexis, black, possibly Barbadian-American; Jaylen Ray Fryberg, Indian; Ivan Antonio Lopez, Hispanic; and One L. Goh, Korean immigrant. (While I'm here: Why are we http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1621572676/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1621572676&linkCode=as2&tag=anncoulter-20&linkId=QLDD7EQHFEHI3KMQ (bringing in immigrants who are mentally unstable)
ir
?)


There's a rigid formula in media accounts of mass shootings: If possible, blame it on angry white men; when that won't work, blame it on guns.


The perpetrator of the latest massacre, Chris Harper-Mercer, was a half-black immigrant, so the media are refusing to get too specific about him. They don't want to reward the fiend with publicity!


But as people hear details the media are not anxious to provide, they realize that, once again: It's a crazy person. How long is this going to go on?


When will the public rise up and demand that the therapeutic community stop loosing these nuts on the public? After the fact, scores of psychiatrists are always lining up to testify that the defendant was legally insane, unable to control his actions. That information would be a lot more helpful before the wanton slaughter.



Product manufacturers are required by law to anticipate that some idiot might try to dry his cat in the microwave. But a person whose job it is to evaluate mental illness can't be required to ascertain whether the person sitting in his office might be unstable enough to kill?


Maybe at their next convention, psychiatrists could take up a resolution demanding an end to our absurd patient privacy and involuntary commitment laws.


True, America has more privately owned guns than most other countries, and mass shootings are, by definition, committed with guns. But we also make it a lot more difficult than any other country to involuntarily commit crazy people.


Since the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1960s, civil commitment in the United States almost always requires a finding of dangerousness -- both imminent and physical -- as determined by a judge. Most of the rest of the world has more reasonable standards -- you might almost call them "common sense" -- allowing family, friends and even acquaintances to petition for involuntarily commitment, with the final decision made by doctors.


The result of our laissez-faire approach to dangerous psychotics is visible in the swarms of homeless people on our streets, crazy people in our prison populations and the prevalence of mass shootings.


According to a 2002 report by Central Institute of Mental Health for the European Union, the number of involuntarily detained mental patients, per 100,000 people, in other countries looks like this:


-- Austria, 175


-- Finland, 218


-- Germany, 175


-- Sweden, 114


-- England, 93


The absolute maximum number of mental patients per 100,000 people who could possibly be institutionalized by the state in the U.S. -- voluntarily or involuntarily -- is: 17. Yes, according to the Treatment Advocacy Center, there are a grand total of 17 psychiatric beds even available, not necessarily being used. In 1955, there were 340.


After every mass shooting, the left has a lot of fun forcing Republicans to defend guns. Here's an idea: Why not force Democrats to defend the right of the dangerous mentally ill not to take their medicine?


Liberals will howl about "stigmatizing" the mentally ill, but they sure don't mind stigmatizing white men or gun owners. About a third of the population consists of white men. Between a third and half of all Americans have guns in the home. If either white men or guns were the main cause of mass murder, no one would be left in the country.


But I notice that every mass murder is committed by someone who is mentally ill. When the common denominator is a characteristic found in about 0.1 percent of the population -- I think we've found the crucial ingredient!


Democrats won't be able to help themselves, but to instantly close ranks and defend dangerous psychotics, hauling out the usual meaningless statistics:


-- Most mentally ill are not violent!


Undoubtedly true. BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANOREXICS, AGORAPHOBICS OR OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVES. We were thinking of paranoid schizophrenics.


-- The mentally ill are more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence!


I'll wager that the percentage of the nation's 310 million guns that are ever used in a crime is quite a bit lower than the percentage of mentally ill to ever engage in violence.


As with the "most Muslims are peaceful" canard, while a tiny percentage of mentally ill are violent, a gigantic percentage of mass shooters are mentally ill.


How can these heartless Democrats look the parents of dead children in the eye and defend the right of the mentally deranged to store their feces in a shoebox, menace library patrons -- and, every now and then, commit mass murder?
 
Product manufacturers are required by law to anticipate that some idiot might try to dry his cat in the microwave. But a person whose job it is to evaluate mental illness can't be required to ascertain whether the person sitting in his office might be unstable enough to kill?

Er, my wife is a psychologist with many psychiatrist friends. I have yet to meet a singe one I thought was actually sane much less capable of evaluating others. I have heard more than one say she would have every conservative committed if she had the power. In any case it circumvents the 5th Amendment to deprive someone of their rights (life, liberty or property) without due process, which includes evidence of a crime, not a pre-crime.

Also, psychiatrists ARE required to report (among other things) the suicidal or homicidal intentions of their patients. What they aren't required to do is testify in court against their patients AFTER they are charged with a crime.
 
Er, my wife is a psychologist with many psychiatrist friends. I have yet to meet a singe one I thought was actually sane much less capable of evaluating others. I have heard more than one say she would have every conservative committed if she had the power. In any case it circumvents the 5th Amendment to deprive someone of their rights (life, liberty or property) without due process, which includes evidence of a crime, not a pre-crime.

Also, psychiatrists ARE required to report (among other things) the suicidal or homicidal intentions of their patients. What they aren't required to do is testify in court against their patients AFTER they are charged with a crime.
I think it would be fair to say. Once you've been diagnosed as a dangerous mentally ill person you've given up your rights to liberty. Especially at the potential expense of another's life.
 
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It says "people," "keep," "bear," and "shall not."

What is there to talk about?
 
I think it would be fair to say. Once you've been diagnosed as a dangerous mentally ill person you've given up your rights to liberty. Especially at the potential expense of another's life.

You missed the point completely. Do you really want doctors determining your rights? There is NO physical diagnosis for mentally ill. They don't measure "chemical imbalances" in your brain. It's a subjective determination, more ambiguous even than Labmax.
 
You missed the point completely. Do you really want doctors determining your rights? There is NO physical diagnosis for mentally ill. They don't measure "chemical imbalances" in your brain. It's a subjective determination, more ambiguous even than Labmax.
Not mine because I'm not crazy. Ok maybe just a little. But I'm guessing your still pro gun confiscation?
 
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It says "people," "keep," "bear," and "shall not."

What is there to talk about?
Oh, I dunno... tons of leftists want to cry over the placement of the comma and such as if that completely negates the intended meaning. Others want to tear it apart word by word as if there is some magical hidden super secret meaning yet to be discovered in the human language that only beings from another galaxy were able to decipher. In the mean time, I'll be cleaning my guns.
 
Not mine because I'm not crazy. Ok maybe just a little. But I'm guessing your still pro gun confiscation?

It wouldn't be up to you. That's the point. It would be up to doctors and eventually, ultimately politicians.

Me pro gun confiscation? Hell no! : )

The only problem I see is gun free zones being undefended. One of the costs of liberty is taking responsibility for one's own safety. That has been replaced with enforced helplessness.
 
Dana Loesch Adrresses WaPo

http://danaloeschradio.com/wapo-yes-we-want-your-guns

<B>WaPo: Yes, We Want Your Guns</B>

Washington Post writer pines for make-believe society wherein evil doesn't exist, people don't need to defend themselves, and the Bill of Rights are just malleable suggestions. Excerpted with commentary. Let's do this, America!

<I>Maybe it’s time to start using the words that the NRA has turned into unmentionables.

Prohibition.

Mass buyback.

A gun-free society.

Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.

Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe? Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed — and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?</I>

I know, because there are no mass shootings anywhere in Europe (or elsewhere) anymore because they banned guns .

(Right?)

<I>Yes, even saying these words makes the NRA happy. It fuels the slippery-slope argument the gun lobby uses to oppose even the most modest, common-sense reforms. You see? Background checks today, confiscation tomorrow.</I>

Oregon had background checks and "modest common-sense reforms."

<I>And yes, I understand how difficult it would be. This is a matter of changing the culture and norms of an entire society. It would take time.</I>

Actually, just changing the Bill of Rights. Why stop there? The killer cited reckless media coverage for making previous murderers famous; maybe it's time we have a national conversation about common sense solutions to regulate media.

<I>But the incremental approach is not succeeding. It sets increasingly modest goals, increasingly polite goals: close a loophole here, restrict a particularly lethal weapon there. Talk about gun safety and public health. Say “reform,” not “control.”</I>

The author says the incremental approach to undoing the Bill of Rights isn't working, they need to go whole hog. Close a non-existent loophole here, restrict whatever weapon is black, has stuff on it, and looks shooty. Tell people that control is "reform." Punish the law-abiding for the deeds of the criminals.

<I>Every time there is a mass shooting, gun-control advocates argue again for legislation. But almost every time, opponents can argue that this shooter wouldn’t have been blocked from buying a gun, or that this gun would not have been on anyone’s banned list — and so why waste time (and political capital) on irrelevant restrictions?</I>

FBI Director James Comey issued a public statement admitting the state and FBI "flawed" in not flagging murderer Dylann Roof. Yes, let's restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans for not only the deeds of criminals, but also because the background check people want expanded is horrifically flawed. Heaven forbid we spend time otherwise making sure that the people administering the law do so and that it's followed to full extent.

<I>Modest restrictions can help and have helped. The one-gun-a-month law can reduce crime.</I>

Based on ... ? Doesn't seem to be working for Chicago, DC, Philly, NYC, etc. Maybe they're anomalies.

<I>The gun-show loophole should be closed, and closing it would prevent some criminals from obtaining weapons.</I>

What "loophole?" If you are classified by the ATF as a dealer you must have a federal firearms license. Background checks are mandatory. You can't order a gun off of the Internet and have it shipped to your home; it must go through an FFL. No FFL is going to jeopardize their hard-won license for a criminal sale. You may not purchase a firearm from across state lines as dealers are barred via the Gun Control Act of 1968 from selling or transferring firearms sans FLL across state lines.

You may purchase a firearm from an occasional seller, not a dealer (differences matter) in your state of residence if you are legally allowed to own a firearm (no domestic violence record, no felonies, no drug use, et al.) -- meaning you are not a prohibited possessor or even suspected of being a prohibited possessor. If you are a prohibited possessor and you buy a gun regardless you're breaking the law and will be charged with a crime. If a person knowingly sells a prohibited possessor a firearm they are breaking the law and will be charged with a crime. If they claim cluelessness they still may be charged depending on the results of the investigation. That's not a loophole, that's a criminal act. If your driver's license is suspended due to a DUI and yet you continue to drive, that's not a loophole in the law, it is a criminal act. What anti-Second Amendment advocates mean when they use the rhetorical scam term "loophole" is that they want the federal government to treat every single American as a federal firearms dealer, meaning they would have to establish a national, quasi-registry (current law prevents the federal government from compiling a registry based off of the NICS information) to make it work and make your husband doubly-answerable to the ATF if he legally buys your son his first hunting rifle.

Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, Seung-Hui Cho, Dylann Roof, Chris Mercer, and James Holmes did not obtain guns through private purchases (Lanza's first crime was a felony -- stealing his mother's unsecured firearms which by itself is actionable considering his mental state). In each case their families, the state, or the background check system failed. Cho was adjudicated mentally unfit and should not have been able to purchase a gun.

Punishing innocent Americans for the decisions of criminals is gun shaming and abhorrent.

<I>As we’ve seen over the past 15 years with same-sex marriage, such deep cultural change is difficult — and possible.</I>

It's rich that the side which advocates for the "sanctity" of infanticide is concerned about loss of life elsewhere. You want to stop gun homicide? Revolutionize the justice system. Make deterrents real and heavy-handed during sentencing. Quit early releasing felons. Stop reducing bail for repeat offenders of gun crimes. Allow people to defend themselves. Murderers stop every time they're confronted by a good guy with a gun -- either self inflicted or police inflicted. Don't whine about a "cultural change" while you push to mainstream pedophlia and black market baby organ sales. People aren't so stupid that they'll miss that massive disconnect.

<I>Given how guns decimate poor black communities every day — not just when there are mass shootings, but every day — this is a civil rights issue.</I>

Oh, finally, eons down the article the author finally thinks of inner city gang crime. But it's not gang crime causing this, it's guns. If guns didn't exist there wouldn't be any gangs! Ever! Yes, gun rights are a civil rights issue. Anti-Second Amendment advocates constantly find themselves on the wrong side of it.

<I>The Supreme Court, which has misread the Second Amendment in its recent decisions, would have to revisit the issue. The court has corrected itself before, and if public opinion shifts it could correct itself again. If it did not, the Constitution would have to be amended.</I>

And admitted: Doing away with the Bill of Rights.

<I>There are strong arguments against setting a gun-free society as the goal, but there are 100,000 arguments in favor — that’s how many of us get shot every year. Every year 11,000 Americans are murdered. Every year some 20,000 kill themselves with guns.</I>

The author would do well to learn how to read statistics and not cite the debunked Kellerman study (he refused to release his findings initially because he knew they were flawed; I also debunked him in my book) or the ridiculous "Violence Policy Center" via the very anti-gun "Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence." Anti-Second Amendment advocates always include suicides in with homicides to inflate numbers.Automobile accidents kill more people than guns. (See also drowning, bathtubs.) We should have a national conversation about common sense laws to restrict access to automobiles.

<I>Maybe it’s time to start talking about the most logical way to save their lives.</I>

None of what this author proposed would qualify as "logical." We should talk intelligently about enforcing current laws, strengthening the justice system and reducing the bureaucracy, and stopping gun shaming.

These people hate innocent, law-abiding gun owners more than the actual murderers.
 
How many of my brothers are sick and tired of left wing talking monkeys trying to take the weapons away from law abiding citzens. I include the vast majority of members here as being law abiding citzens in every other way other than aas.

Mental illness is the true problem but the cocksuckers in Washington blame their own failed ideology.

I'm for back ground checks and other measures that protects the public from lunes, but to take weapons from people who need to protect their families is not the answer.

I am deeply sadend from this last mass killing, but it is because mental illness has been on the back burner since that worthless pos Reagen was in office.

The rooster has come home to roost. Big fucking surprise.

You can't be serious about blaming Reagan, who btw is by far the best President we've had in the post-WWII era. Too bad he didn't succeed in killing off the Department of Education, a related story (see below re. our schools), but no other president has managed to clean up our Federal Register (and tax system) as much. http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/21/the-towering-federal-register/

As many others point out, involuntary confinement is a rather unpleasant thing and what started as an attempt to correct abuse (proving yourself sane to the wardens of mental institutions past hopefully didn't look like "One Fly Over the Cuckoo's Nest", or the first season of "American Horror Show") was turned into an extreme spectacle of non-involvement by the likes of the ACLU (and the general trend toward stripping legal authorities of all discretion in favor of mandatory guidelines). Now we have liberal hellholes like San Francisco filled with the clinically insane on every street corner and smelling like a urinal to boot.

The solution is not more government involvement - certainly not from the federal level, they only succeed in turning small problems into big ones - but rather more effective local involvement. Giving judges back their discretionary powers for example. Turning schools back into places that actually teach - which includes discipline, sorely missing for the past several decades.

The list goes on - and most of the ailments can be pinned on liberals and their misguided albeit well-intended notions that inevitable backfire.

And the liberal response - turning the entire nation into a "gun-free zone" - what a joke. How's that working for Chicago? Why do liberals call themselves liberal - a less permissive lot of overbearing micro-managing busybodies is hard to imagine. Such fascists.
 
I don't have a problem with the gun laws regarding full auto weapons. The 1934 law did not ban the ownwership of such weapons, but merely put qualifiers on them for ownership. The susequent laws regarding these weapons over the years still allow ownership as long as you can meet the qualifications and rightly so.
IMO, 90% of the population and I'm including gun owners have zero training with full auto weaponry. Then you throw in the loons who think it would be cool to have one and it is the making of a perfect storm. The NRA's stance indicates they have people in place with some common sense.

Please note, I am pro gun, have many, including class III, but I believe in regulation for these types of weapons. I know first hand what they can do.

Class III guns should be opened again - allow new guns to be registered as Class III. Even better would be getting rid of the major 1968 (and 1986, and 1993) gun laws, including the ATF. All it does is catch innocent citizens in BS violations. The criminals don't give a shit. No Class III weapon (lawfully possessed) has EVER been used in a crime.

Shooting full auto is exceedingly expensive, and fairly ineffective. I can hit solid center when rapidly firing, but going full auto is a joke, just not under control, not while firing any serious caliber. Full auto is meant as suppressive fire - to hit an area, not a target. I.e. not terribly useful outside military applications and exhibitions like Knob Hill. Even in the military, especially if you have to carry your ammo on your back, you'd rather shoot controlled 3-shot bursts or rapid single shot than any "spray and pray" nonsense.

That said, it is cool to fire a belt-fed MG - with Uncle Sam paying for it. I'd go broke in a hurry paying for that on my own.
 
Class III guns should be opened again - allow new guns to be registered as Class III. Even better would be getting rid of the major 1968 (and 1986, and 1993) gun laws, including the ATF. All it does is catch innocent citizens in BS violations. The criminals don't give a shit. No Class III weapon (lawfully possessed) has EVER been used in a crime.

Shooting full auto is exceedingly expensive, and fairly ineffective. I can hit solid center when rapidly firing, but going full auto is a joke, just not under control, not while firing any serious caliber. Full auto is meant as suppressive fire - to hit an area, not a target. I.e. not terribly useful outside military applications and exhibitions like Knob Hill. Even in the military, especially if you have to carry your ammo on your back, you'd rather shoot controlled 3-shot bursts or rapid single shot than any "spray and pray" nonsense.

That said, it is cool to fire a belt-fed MG - with Uncle Sam paying for it. I'd go broke in a hurry paying for that on my own.

Unfortunately Hinckley was a bad shot.

Personally I couldn't care less about your opinion.

If you feel so strongly start a thread about how great Reagan was.

Sound like a plan?
 
Class III guns should be opened again - allow new guns to be registered as Class III. Even better would be getting rid of the major 1968 (and 1986, and 1993) gun laws, including the ATF. All it does is catch innocent citizens in BS violations. The criminals don't give a shit. No Class III weapon (lawfully possessed) has EVER been used in a crime.

Shooting full auto is exceedingly expensive, and fairly ineffective. I can hit solid center when rapidly firing, but going full auto is a joke, just not under control, not while firing any serious caliber. Full auto is meant as suppressive fire - to hit an area, not a target. I.e. not terribly useful outside military applications and exhibitions like Knob Hill. Even in the military, especially if you have to carry your ammo on your back, you'd rather shoot controlled 3-shot bursts or rapid single shot than any "spray and pray" nonsense.

That said, it is cool to fire a belt-fed MG - with Uncle Sam paying for it. I'd go broke in a hurry paying for that on my own.

I'm not against belt fed machine guns. I don't care much for new guys talking shit. Very new guy in your case.
 
Tempound I can tell already you will be a longstanding and valuable member of this community. you can take the vermin shit and shove it square up your cunt cunt:)
 
Back
Top