Columbine - Gun Free Zone Virginia Tech - Gun Free Zone Ft. Hood - Gun Free Zone Aurora Century 16 - Gun Free Zone Sandyhook - Gun Free Zone Washington Naval Yard - Gun Free Zone I wonder what is common about all these shootings?
I think it's more of a dislike of not getting shot. You know... life, liberty, that kind of stuff. I don't know why gun owners are so intent on bringing their guns into the vicinity of people who don't want guns around them. There is absolutely no reason for it except to cause trouble.
When I want to see people with their morals in a garbage can, I need only to look at gun-grabbing liberals. Once again, the focus is on the "evil guns" and of course the "evil people in the gun industry that make them." Congress has in addition to the worthless gun control laws it has made over the last 100 years, also made a variety of criminal control laws, like RICO. However, the Justice Dept has not enfoced these laws against the typical bad guy who use guns to murder others---violent street gangs. Liberals and Neo-Communists in the Media and government always bring up the some 500 people killed by mass shooters over the years, but abosultely ignore the tens of thousands killed by street gangs in the same time period. The common organizations of death and terror, found in every liberal-controlled ghetto, will not be brought to justice with the laws we already have to stop them. For the Liberals, gun control is far more important than criminal control.
If you were unfortunate enough to be inside a mall with your two little children....and some terrorists broke in with guns, blocking the doors so no one could get out....and was going around shooting people one by one....AND there were a few GOOD guys inside the mall with guns on them.....YOU would want to be with them; I can guarantee you that because it would the only chance for you AND your children. Think about it.
..... A corrupt, bought off Congress that refuses to legislate strict laws that will provide constitutional security and safety of American citizens provided by our Constitution. What do you think We The People means when the authors wrote: ".....of the United States in order to form a more ferfect Ubion, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility..promote the general Welfare, and secure the Nlessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...." ???
I carry a concealed handgun. No one knows it there, and there is no drama. I have a right to keep and bear arms, I fail to see a right that says you have a right to be in a world without guns. Perhaps you are living in the wrong country? So I fail to see your point.
The same thing it means in the "right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Your solution is to disarm the PEOPLE, so that society's predators can have free reign. So that we the PEOPLE have no blessings of liberty. "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.” - G. Washington
..... You already have your"basic right to effective self defense" ie: local police, national guard, swat teams. We don't need people masquerading their fears/obsessions into a false notion that the Constitution gives them a right to own guns, assault weapons, and whatever else a weapon obsessed citizen needs to make them feel safer. The NRA has falsely claimed jurisdiction over Amendment II which states: " 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." and has turned this into action for wholesale gun production, sales, membership in the NRA based on their false 'interpretation' of Amend. II. Only in a severely obsessed mind would a company/organizarion misconstrue the actual meaning of this Amendment. The term "militia" was used in the 1700's for local police, national guard, and Army...never meant for assorted groups of obsessed gun owners that now want to carry their guns into public schools, theatres, political town meetings, remembering Gabby Giffords, the abortion doctor who was shot in the back at a church service, and Sarah Palin looking down the sights of a gun in a political ad. while gun owners slyly say they just want to hunt and kill animals. The record number of deaths of innocent civilians is unacceptable in the richest country in the world, and should be a living reminder of the fragility of a Democratic country that has massive corruption in Congress, and such a low image of their fellow Americans that they can allow, and even fight for, the continued random killing of innocent children, mothers, and a citizen out for an evening walk. A sad reminder also of a deliberate misinterpretation of Amendment II in order to make money from sales, distribution, membership in NRA, and the corrupting of Congressmen that will enable the lax laws to be written that will ensure more money and power to the NRA and gun companies.
You are way out on a limb here. Even the so-called "Supreme Court" says the second amendment guarantees an individual right. You're not going to get any traction with that kind of blatant opposition to the regime's own "final say". Time to try some new lies.
It wouldn't mean the end of the world but it would mean your a whore and a slave to your master the gov't.
Probably fewer than 2% of handguns and well under 1% of all guns will ever be involved in a violent crime. Thus, the problem of criminal gun violence is concentrated within a very small subset of gun owners, indicating that gun control aimed at the general population faces a serious needle-in-the-haystack problem. http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/point-blank-summary.html In chapter 2 near the bottom. Old but still viable if for no other reason than it is harder to get a gun now than it used to be. Very nice read.
Not to disagree with this...... In the hands of the "criminals, mentally disturbed, or others that are prohibited from owning firearms" those carrying firearms in public do represent a serious threat to public safety and we're not doing nearly enough in this regard and don't we need to tromp all over the rights of law abiding gun owners to do more. For example, gun control advocates state that individual sales of firearms don't have background checks run and they're absolutely correct. No background checks are being run on private sales because we can't run those checks. Only FFL's can run background check. A law abiding gun owner doesn't want to sell a gun to a criminal, crazy person, or anyone else that shouldn't have a firearm but there's no way for us to run a background check. We don't need a "mandate" to run a check because it's in our own best interests to run that background check. Private citizens (assuming individuals eventually get access to the FBI NICS system) and FFL's alike also need to be able to immediately inform law enforcement is someone prohibited from owning a firearm attempts to purchase one so they can respond. That is a felony and if law enforcement doesn't become involved (and they don't because there isn't a notification system tied into a background check) then the person just leaves and goes somewhere else to buy a firearm. I don't want to just prevent a criminal from buying a gun from me, I don't want them to buy a gun from anyone. Additionally as a gun buyer I want access to a database to ensure that I'm not purchasing a stolen firearm and also want to be able to instantly notify law enforcement (semi-secretly) if someone attempts to sell me a stolen firearm. We don't need mandates (that gun control nuts insist upon but that criminals ignore) but we do require access to both run a background check on a buyer if we're selling and access to a stolen gun database if we're buying. We can also pragmatically address carrying firearms in public. I have a CCW and while it's not required I wouldn't object to listing the firearms I carry in public on the CCW. I also believe that the CCW license, that no one really objects to, be expanded to all firearms carried in public. In truth we shouldn't be carrying open anyway as it causes fright and panic in many people even when we're law abiding and well trained gun owners. Concealed is the best way to carry a firearm in public for all involved. So let's just expand the CCW permit to include everyone carrying in public (except hunters where the hunting license provides a temporary permit). Of course there is no reason for registration of firearms or licensing of individuals related to firearms in the home for self defense and they don't represent any potential threat to public safety and certainly no reason to ban a firearm based upon appearance or even functionality considering the fully automatic firearms can be legally owned in the US (with an owner permit or license and registration of the firearm). Once again, be pragmatic and there is much more we can do that isn't being done without violating the rights of gun owners.
The guns are by definition, concealed. Folk are clueless about any guns in their vicinity....Now the hoplophobe is not concerned about the reality of a weapon, they instead are terrified of the possibility of a weapon, like a gated community is of an actual dark skinned neighbor, an equally silly fear.
I didn't call anyone here a gun nut but we can run a test to find out who might be. Are you opposed to having the FBI NICS opened up so that private gun owners can voluntarily run a background check to ensure that they're not selling a firearm to someone prohibited from owning one? 2) Do you oppose having a voluntary national database containing the serial numbers of stolen firearms so that a person can check to verify that they're not buying a stolen gun? 3) Do you oppose having a voluntary (semi-secret) means of instantly notifying law enforcement using the above internet systems if the attempted sale/purchase involves someone breaking the law so that they can be questioned by police instead of going down the road to illegally purchase or sell a firearm? Optional Question: 4) Are you opposed to expanding the CCW license for all persons, excluding hunters, carrying firearms in public as "open carry" creates undue fear in the public that has no idea of whether the person is a responsible firearm owner or a criminal? If you answered "No" to the first two then you're not a gun nut. If you answered "No" to the first three you're not only not a gun nut but you actually care about stopping violent crime as well. If you answered "No" to all of the questions then you're really middle of the road when it comes to reasonable firearms laws.
When exactly was the last time any of those folk actually stopped a violent attack in progress before it has cost more than one life? I can list at least two recent Supreme Court opinions that state your view is the one that is a tad 'false'. I figure Heller pretty much killed that imaginary view... The Militia was specifically defined in 1792 in the Militia Act of the same time. Oddly, it did not consist of your folk but instead was the body of citizens capable of carrying arms armed with their own weapons. The record in reality is one of ever decreasing gun deaths due to violence over decades. That is just drivel and wishful thinking married to willful ignorance of or history, actual numbers, and the law.
And when these laws fail to prevent the next big shooting...what will be asked for next. It is a simple transition to a national database of gun owners. 1. Not necessarily opposed to a voluntary background check.....Will people who have criminal records allow you to voluntarily run it? 2. There already is a national database of reported stolen firearms It's called NCIC. You can voluntarily take any of your guns and have the serial number ran. Will people with stolen weapons allow you to run their serial numbers? 3. I can see abuse written all over that one. 4. I don't much care how people carry, in states where it is done frequently there is no undue fear. Oh and I'm not a gun nut either.
FIRST- The NRA is not some shadow subversive organization that is run by reptilians. It is The People. In the case of responsible gun owners, it is We The People. Next- I don't feel a need to carry concealed, but I live in a State where open carry is legal. If I feel the need to be armed in public, I do so. I only do so when I want suspicious persons to know that there is an armed citizen in attendance. It keeps them polite. My problem with the current Brady check system, and the proposed personal sales check is that it provides the Feds with a record of every firearm I purchase. I think it is already law that any FFL holder has to have his inventory checked to see if any of the guns are stolen. I have no problem at all with having to pass a background check that certifies me as being a legal purchaser, but I do have a problem with having every serial number reported to the Feds. It's not their business. For decent citizens, there should be less redundancy in the process of background checks. I should be able to present my TA card to a dealer with no further proof of my qualifications. A TA card is held by Taxicab drivers in Las Vegas, and is renewed every year. Our fingerprints are compared to the federal records to see if we've left any prints in the wrong places, and we are reviewed to see if there are any new offenses that would bar us from driving. There are many other occupations that require strict monitoring of ones' legal status, like those requiring a security clearance. That should be enough. As for trying to demonize the gun makers.... That's just small minded.
Voluntary is all good, but that's not what gun-banners are pushing and it's not their standard for defining "gun nuts". They want all that and more to be mandatory. They want to violate the fourth amendment as well as the second, and any other part of the constitution that gets in their way. The bottom line is every person has the same rights. If some people have forfeited theirs by doing violence to others, the burden of proof is on the government, not on the vast majority of innocent people. Given that the current government is guilty of major crimes including mass murder, torture, and thievery on a vast scale, I'm not inclined to help them even if a particular case seems justified. Volunteerism... it might work in a free country. Good luck finding one.
Let's review the concerns. As noted but 1 & 2 are related to the FBI NICS database that an individual does not have access to. All that is required is for the FBI to make this database available to individuals as opposed to limiting it to FFL's and law enforcement. It is voluntary and not a mandated check on individuals that may be listed as being prohibited form owning firearms and checking to see if a firearm is stolen. The question as to whether someone on the list would allow the check would allow the check but the evidence from FFL's indicated they would. From what I recall about 80,000 firearm sales were prevented related to individuals on this list based upon FFL's running background checks. Apparently they will because they're bold enough to walk into a gun shop and allow the background check to be run. I don't know how many stolen guns are located each year but we all know that a lot are stolen and not recovered often changing hands many times. The problem is that with those tens of thousands of individuals denied a purchase at a gun shop only in a handful of cases is anything every done about it and the person just walks out of the door to go purchase a firearm somewhere else. Virtually all of the 80,000 people just walk away and go purchase a firearm somewhere else probably from a private party that can't run a background check. That's why I want access to the FBI NICS and the ability to report an attempt at an illegal attempt to purchase or sell a stolen firearm. Once again this is voluntary but the concern was raised that it could be abused but I don't see how. It would be based upon the FBI NICS database response that indicated the person was prohibited (in the case of a seller using the database) or that the firearm was stolen (in the case of a buyer using the database) so only the FBI NICS database would generate the option of reporting the possible criminal act to law enforcement. I would anticipate that when the database search was complete it would report something like "Sale prohibited, would you like to report it?" and a button to click that would open up a new screen where the location could be input and sent so that local law enforcement could respond immediately and the screen then go back to a "Your request is being processed" to allow law enforcement time to respond. So I don't see how it could be abused because it would always be based upon the search results from the FBI NICS database and not an arbitrary action where a probable felony was being committed. It doesn't determine that a felony was committed but provides reasonable grounds for police investigation. As for requiring a CCW for all carrying of firearms in public I highly disagree with the opinion that it doesn't make people very nervous. I'm very used to firearms and was in a McDonald's once where two men that were not law enforcement were carrying open and it made me slightly nervous. I obviously wasn't "freak-out paranoid" about it but I was concerned. There are people that really are "freak-out paranoid" and it makes them very uncomfortable and feel threatened and we don't have a right to cause people to feel threatened. As I mentioned I have a CCW and I'd never carry open in public because I don't have a right to cause others to fear for their safety. When anyone carries open they are going to cause some people to fear for their personal safety and as a responsible gun owner we need to be considerate of others. If you carry then carry concealed is a simple rule for responsible gun owners. Additionally I will point to the fact that CCW holders have the lowest statistical probability of being involved in a criminal act with a firearm. Their rate is actually lower than law enforcement officers from what I understand. Responsible gun owners should have no objections to obtaining a CCW for carrying in public regardless of whether it's open or concealed and, in fact, some states prohibit "open carry" without a CCW from what I understand. My CCW allows me to do either and, as noted, it's better to carry concealed if a person chooses to carry a firearm. As I also noted there are exceptions that I would include to the CCW for a firearm carried in public such as a hunting license being a temporary license during hunting season. I also don't object to having to list the firearm(s) to be carried based upon on either a CCW or hunting license because it doesn't necessary mean the person owns the firearm. They probably would but I've borrowed a rifle for hunting season before. This isn't actually "registration" of the firearm because ownership shouldn't be a requirement so instead it's just "listing" of the firearm associated with the "license" to have the firearm in public. I oppose any mandatory registration of firearm ownership or licensing (permitting) of individuals for firearms in the home as those do not represent a potential threat to the public safety. The gun control nuts go way too far when they demand this or when they demand mandates for background checks or verifications related to whether a firearm is stolen. "Criminals" won't comply with these mandates anyway so they accomplish nothing and the government doesn't have any legitimate role or responsibility related to "private safety" of people (which is why drug prohibition laws are illegitimate as they address "private safety" and not "public safety" issues and create a public safety problem associated with the black market in drugs) . All-in-all I don't believe the concerns are warranted. Voluntary background and firearms checks are something responsible gun owners want to do as it's in our own best self interests. Reporting probable felonies to keep "criminals" from walking down the street to purchase a firearm or sell a stolen firearm is also in our best self interests and based upon the FBI NICS database can't really be abused. And CCW requirements for all carrying in public should be encouraged because people with CCW's have the lowest firearm crime rates.
As I noted originally both extremes go too far. The "gun control nuts" go way too far in addressing matters that are not related to "public safety" such as requiring licensing of persons or registration of firearms used exclusively in the home for self-defense purposes and imposing mandates that only law-abiding individuals will comply and that criminals will ignore. The "gun nuts" go too far when they claim that we don't need anymore safe-guards when, in fact, we do and they need not infringed upon our Right to Bear Arms. Voluntary background checks, ability to voluntarily report probably criminal actions related to purchases or sales of firearms to stop the person from walking away to purchase a firearm or sell a firearm elsewhere, and requiring a CCW with exceptions (e.g. a hunting license as a temporary permit) to carry any firearm in public when we know that CCW holders have the lowest firearm crime rates are reasonable steps we can take that don't violate our Right of Self-Defense which is what the 2nd Amendment is really all about. There is middle ground between the two extremes where we can improve the public safety where law abiding Americans find it in their own best interests to voluntarily do that which is right and which doesn't infringe upon their Right of Self-Defense (that is the foundation for the 2nd Amendment). We can also go a little bit further with effective ways of stopping gun violence where our rights are not violated. I would propose that a person under a temporary court restraining order for domestic violence have their firearms impounded (not confiscated) and the person prohibited from purchasing/possessing firearms while the temporary restraining order is in effect and that these restraining orders always be reviewed by the court before they are lifted. Does the identified danger still exist is a key question before lifting the restraining order. .
