Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1066249]Did Conn pass the laws before or after Newtown ?

1) people can still buy guns in Conn
2) No one has had any guns confiscated
3)No ones second amendment rights were harmed

............see if your innate bias can comprehend that .[/quote]

apparently yours could not.

are you suggesting that before the Newtown shooting Connecticut's gun laws were not on the stricter side? I used your source, so I don't know when that images stats were taken. Do you?

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1066248]I see you can't answer the question .




[URL="https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=F_ElBHPOI3tjQM&tbnid=tgz8eytokMXw2M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fguncontrolnowusa.wordpress.com%2Fpage%2F3%2F&ei=xKY5U6TkJ-qpsQTJvYHwDQ&bvm=bv.63808443,d.aWc&psig=AFQjCNFoh7h1BnKNu2jTMdiqoY66OT29CQ&ust=1396373371345252"][IMG]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmuOF_2CVZsjYRi8vWhr1iRxLh-FXeXJljcLd1NNW0e2FHpvlz[/IMG][/URL][/quote]LOL, I answered your question more fully than you know. Literally. You obviously can't grasp an opposing viewpoint to yours, this being an example where you have no idea what gun safety is. or what organizations like the NRA do.

But way to point yourself out to be a gun-grabbing idiot, just like I said in post #557, G1. :food-smil

Re: post #557. And I've posted this before, but maybe this is part of the gun-grabbers problem. Maybe it's all that you go by, based on some of your recent pics.
[IMG]http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/sgpaction/pages/403/attachments/original/1360642481/nravshollywood.jpg?1360642481[/IMG]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

Things are heating up .


[url=http://denver.cbslocal.com/video/10001623-trial-will-determine-if-gun-control-lawsuits-are-unconstitutional/]Trial Will Determine If Gun Control Lawsuits Are Unconstitutional « CBS Denver[/url]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1066452]Things are heating up .


[url=http://denver.cbslocal.com/video/10001623-trial-will-determine-if-gun-control-lawsuits-are-unconstitutional/]Trial Will Determine If Gun Control Lawsuits Are Unconstitutional « CBS Denver[/url][/quote]The judge needs to be fired/dismissed/impeached if she rules against the lawsuit. Courts exist as one of the primary checks to abuse by the other two branches of government. Let alone the issue of the constitution's second amendment.

On the constitutional issue, wouldn't this mean that lawsuits involving the first amendment could be dismissed as well?

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=HailGreen28;1066473]The judge needs to be fired/dismissed/impeached if she rules against the lawsuit. Courts exist as one of the primary checks to abuse by the other two branches of government. Let alone the issue of the constitution's second amendment.

On the constitutional issue, wouldn't this mean that lawsuits involving the first amendment could be dismissed as well?[/quote]


I thought the same thing , it is why I posted it , are they reviewing the laws themselves or the lawsuits about the laws ?

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1066523]I thought the same thing , it is why I posted it , are they reviewing the laws themselves or the lawsuits about the laws ?[/quote]Yeah, the actual case sounded like it was about specifics of the lawsuit by the cops (Yay pro 2nd amend. police!) But the headline and opinion by the reporters and their "legal expert" seemed to me to be talking about the viability of bringing such a lawsuit to begin with.

(Paging our legal expert JoeRedskin, :confused?:)

Also, it's a world turned upside down if a state government can say "No you can't challenge our law on US Constitutional grounds". I thought Arizona would get skewered over immigration if they tried to justify themselves on similar grounds.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

My dad was a cop, he taught me gun safety and how to shoot when I was 7, oddly enough in 46 years the only living thing I have shot were rattlesnakes that were found too close to the house where kids played when I lived in the Southern California mountains and desert. Dad and all his cop buddies believed all their friend's and families should have guns in the house for home protection. They all said the chances of being saved from an armed intruder by a cop is rare unless the cop was your next door neighbor and heard the commotion.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/fort-hood-shooting-222528983.html?soc_src=mediacontentsharebuttons[/url]

[url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26863033]BBC News - Shooting at US Army's Fort Hood base in Texas[/url]


The US has a mental health problem. Let's focus on the real cause of this bullshit instead of sweeping it under the rug.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

Yeah, second that.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1067148][url]http://news.yahoo.com/fort-hood-shooting-222528983.html?soc_src=mediacontentsharebuttons[/url]

[url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26863033]BBC News - Shooting at US Army's Fort Hood base in Texas[/url]


[B]The US has a mental health problem. Let's focus on the real cause of this bullshit instead of sweeping it under the rug.[/B][/quote]

It seems like the old fashion one on one fist fight which was a popular way to settle disputes when I was a young man is a thing of the past. I also noticed it seems especially with the younger mass shooters a large percentage of them seem to be the dorky slightly built socially awkward types, ones that would have been picked on a lot back in the day.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1067148][url=http://news.yahoo.com/fort-hood-shooting-222528983.html?soc_src=mediacontentsharebuttons]Fort Hood shooting leaves 4 dead, including gunman; 16 injured[/url]

[URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26863033"]BBC News - Shooting at US Army's Fort Hood base in Texas[/URL]


The US has a mental health problem. Let's focus on the real cause of this bullshit instead of sweeping it under the rug.[/quote]


Again I agree with you but now comes the argument ,if that person has a mental health issue should he be allowed to buy a gun ,it is his 2nd amendment right correct ?

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1067148][url=http://news.yahoo.com/fort-hood-shooting-222528983.html?soc_src=mediacontentsharebuttons]Fort Hood shooting leaves 4 dead, including gunman; 16 injured[/url]

[url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26863033]BBC News - Shooting at US Army's Fort Hood base in Texas[/url]


[B]The US has a mental health problem. Let's focus on the real cause of this bullshit instead of sweeping it under the rug.[/B][/quote]

Well you would have to change some laws and give away some freedoms for public safety and most people are unwilling to do that. I am talking about laws about detaining people against their will for mental health evaluations. Almost every mass shooter lately has been described as troubled or strange by people who knew them. Unfortunately if you are an adult, don't commit a crime or go completely berserk in public nothing can be done to have you mentally evaluated against your will.

[QUOTE=Giantone;1067176]Again I agree with you but now comes the argument ,if that person has a mental health issue should he be allowed to buy a gun ,it is his 2nd amendment right correct ?[/QUOTE]

Getting the US to recognize and improve mental health treatment is separate from the 2nd amendment rights. Part of the reason that mental health treatment is lacking in this country is that society wants to attach stigmas to it.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1067191]Getting the US to recognize and improve mental health treatment is separate from the 2nd amendment rights. Part of the reason that mental health treatment is lacking in this country is that society wants to attach stigmas to it.[/quote]


No , you can't have it both ways .While we agree the U.S. needs to upgrade to better mental healthcare then you will have to admit there are some who if off of medication should not have guns .Does the government have the right to know who those people are if they do have weapons ?

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Buffalo Bob;1067188]Unfortunately if you are an adult, don't commit a crime or go completely berserk in public nothing can be done to have you mentally evaluated against your will.[/quote]

Good ,if people act "crazy" , go "berserk" or commit a crime of hate or aggression then they shouldn't have guns .

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Buffalo Bob;1067188]Well you would have to change some laws and give away some freedoms for public safety and most people are unwilling to do that. [/quote]


You mean most gun owners aren't willing to do that ,them and the NRA .

[QUOTE=Giantone;1067205]Good ,if people act "crazy" , go "berserk" or commit a crime of hate or aggression then they shouldn't have guns .[/QUOTE]

How does that work again? <laughing >

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1067202]No , you can't have it both ways .While we agree the U.S. needs to upgrade to better mental healthcare then you will have to admit there are some who if off of medication should not have guns .Does the government have the right to know who those people are if they do have weapons ?[/quote]

Yes, I can.

The rights in the constitution are enshrined there because of their over arching importance.

Mental Health should be a person's privacy. But now with mandatory reporting and overreaching government interference many who would benefit from counseling are scared to go because of how the government will use that information.

Nobody argues your strawman that "some who if off of medication...". You make it seem like there are no restrictions on getting guns and that any ole person can walk up to a gunshop and by one. That's just not the case.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

the 2nd amendment clearly states that its purpose is to provide a well armed militia ... the supreme court case defining militia as any male over 18 as potentially a militia member and thus has 2nd amendment rights and protections seems like a very far stretch.

also the gun laws in texas to allow open carry for rifles were put in place so that hunters could transport a rifle from their home, into their truck and then the woods to hunt without being arrested. it was never intended to allow guys to walk through walmart with AR-15s courting reaction.

^ my opinions are based off articles and synopsis i have read. i have never actually read the SCOTUS case re definition of militia or the Texas legislature hearing notes on intent.

why do i continue to post in this thread???

Re: Pro-gun article
 

Bottomline, time to stop arming mentally unstable people. If you dont just keep expecting stories like this.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1067231]Yes, I can.

The rights in the constitution are enshrined there because of their over arching importance.

Mental Health should be a person's privacy. But now with mandatory reporting and overreaching government interference many who would benefit from counseling are scared to go because of how the government will use that information.

Nobody argues your strawman that "some who if off of medication...". You make it seem like there are no restrictions on getting guns and that any ole person can walk up to a gunshop and by one. That's just not the case.[/quote]

Not at a gun shop but yes they can ,from a neighbor or even at some gun shows .

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1067213]How does that work again? <laughing >

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk[/quote]


You tell me ,how does the government go about keeping the guns out of the hands of the mentally challenged , without infringing on the 2nd amendment ?

[QUOTE=Giantone;1067268]You tell me ,how does the government go about keeping the guns out of the hands of the mentally challenged , without infringing on the 2nd amendment ?[/QUOTE]

I would imagine it would work in the same way that the elderly or visually impaired are denied driving privileges. How would you make it work?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Re: Pro-gun article
 

I think people would be interested to find out the NRA's stance on mental health and gun owning. I think people should read it.


[url=http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2013/mental-health-and-firearms.aspx?s=%22mental+health%22&st=&ps=]NRA-ILA | Mental Health and Firearms[/url]


[quote]Since 1966, the National Rifle Association has urged the federal government to address the problem of mental illness and violence. As we noted then, “the time is at hand to seek means by which society can identify, treat and temporarily isolate such individuals,” because “elimination of the instrument by which these crimes are committed cannot arrest the ravages of a psychotic murderer.”[1]

More recently, the NRA has supported legislation to ensure that appropriate records of those who have been judged mentally incompetent or involuntarily committed to mental institutions be made available for use in firearms transfer background checks. The NRA will support any reasonable step to fix America’s broken mental health system without intruding on the constitutional rights of Americans.[/quote]


[quote]In recent years, anti-gun lawmakers have introduced legislation to expand the definition of people barred from possessing firearms to include persons who have simply been ordered to receive counseling. This could include a person whose employer or school administrator orders him to receive counseling as a condition of employment or enrollment, regardless of the outcome of such counseling. Similarly onerous legislation has been introduced in some states. At least one attempt has been made to ban gun ownership by anyone with any recognized diagnosis from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—an outrageously broad standard that would affect the rights of countless Americans.[/quote]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Buffalo Bob;1067188]Well you would have to change some laws and give away some freedoms for public safety and most people are unwilling to do that. [B][U]I am talking about laws about detaining people against their will for mental health evaluations. [/U][/B]Almost every mass shooter lately has been described as troubled or strange by people who knew them. Unfortunately if you are an adult, don't commit a crime or go completely berserk in public nothing can be done to have you mentally evaluated against your will.[/quote]


[quote=Giantone;1067207]You mean most gun owners aren't willing to do that ,them and the NRA .[/quote]

I think you need to really think about the part he mentioned that I bolded and underlined. Detaining people against their will for mental health evaluations? So who's going to decide that? The government? The local law enforcement? Do you trust those morons and corrupt agencies? We know exactly how this will turn out. "Oh, they are a political enemy or somebody protesting my crimes.....better have them hauled in because I think they are crazy."

No thank you. Absolutely not. It's already to a point where we are becoming more and more of a police state. It won't be just gun owners and the NRA against some bullshit like that.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1067176]Again I agree with you but now comes the argument ,if that person has a mental health issue should he be allowed to buy a gun ,it is his 2nd amendment right correct ?[/quote]


I can't really give you a good answer. It's a slippery slope to say the least. The problem with is the degrees of mental health issues. A depression isn't on the same level as a psychotic schizophrenic, but I'm sure you have legislators that want anybody sent in to see counseling banned from owning a gun. That isn't right. I hate to say it, but I'd much rather have the rare shootings, than to have people's rights trampled on by the government. Even so, more often than not the gun legislation isn't going to stop bad people from doing bad things.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

One thing that could go here, or the media thread, is the use of the term Mass Shooting.

When NBC broke in with a live report of a mass shooting at Fort Hood, my mind had a # of dead of 20 like Sandy Hook, but it was 4. I don't mean to belittle those that died in any way.

Still, when you hear terms like mass graves in the holocaust, or other such terms, surely your mind is thinking in large numbers of dead. And I think the media terms them as mass killings to make it more dramatic. Again to use the car fatalities, nearly every day masses of people are killed in automobiles. Why not that term there.

anyway just ranting:(

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1067342]I think people would be interested to find out the NRA's stance on mental health and gun owning. I think people should read it.


[url=http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2013/mental-health-and-firearms.aspx?s=%22mental+health%22&st=&ps=]NRA-ILA | Mental Health and Firearms[/url][/quote]

Lotta lip service. They are certainly not in the fore front pushing for legislation.

Like I alway say, take the backyard perspective on things. You good with living next to someone with major mental illness who needs medication constantly who has a cache of weapons in his/her house?

How often is that the case? What if their compulsive gun cleaning is all that keeps them sane?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Chico23231;1067373][B]Lotta lip service. They are certainly not in the fore front pushing for legislation.[/B]

Like I alway say, take the backyard perspective on things. You good with living next to someone with major mental illness who needs medication constantly who has a cache of weapons in his/her house?[/quote]


I'm just pointing out their official stance on the issue. Nothing more.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1067348]One thing that could go here, or the media thread, is the use of the term Mass Shooting.

When NBC broke in with a live report of a mass shooting at Fort Hood, my mind had a # of dead of 20 like Sandy Hook, but it was 4. I don't mean to belittle those that died in any way.

Still, when you hear terms like mass graves in the holocaust, or other such terms, surely your mind is thinking in large numbers of dead. And I think the media terms them as mass killings to make it more dramatic. Again to use the car fatalities, nearly every day masses of people are killed in automobiles. Why not that term there.

anyway just ranting:([/quote]


Not only that, but they somehow managed to find a way to blame the black guy for it all.


[url=http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/03/fox-friends-finds-obama-responsible-for-ft-hood-shooting-within-first-24-hours/]‘Fox & Friends’ finds Obama ‘responsible’ for Ft. Hood shooting within first 24 hours | The Raw Story[/url]


:doh:

That never happened when Bush was in office <brown_font>

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1067381]That never happened when Bush was in office <brown_font>

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk[/quote]

Well it's certainly true Fox never blamed Bush, MSNBC, now that's a different story.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1067380]Not only that, but they somehow managed to find a way to blame the black guy for it all.


[url=http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/03/fox-friends-finds-obama-responsible-for-ft-hood-shooting-within-first-24-hours/]‘Fox & Friends’ finds Obama ‘responsible’ for Ft. Hood shooting within first 24 hours | The Raw Story[/url]


:doh:[/quote]

My response to co worker yesterday morning, "blame obama, fox will eventually"

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[IMG]http://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1.0-9/15084_657636310951916_1211984230_n.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1067380]Not only that, but they somehow managed to find a way to blame the black guy for it all.


[URL="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/03/fox-friends-finds-obama-responsible-for-ft-hood-shooting-within-first-24-hours/"]‘Fox & Friends’ finds Obama ‘responsible’ for Ft. Hood shooting within first 24 hours | The Raw Story[/URL]


:doh:[/quote]



[URL="http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=_6NgZaRnbktU6M&tbnid=nInEm1FkQo1K-M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.someecards.com%2Fweekend-cards%2Fnewest&ei=-GVAU_fjGqunsATwpoGoDw&bvm=bv.64125504,d.aWc&psig=AFQjCNGf-yumeesrcHf0TvbLSAtFAooB1g&ust=1396815236109733"][IMG]http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/filestorage/nice-weekend-blame-obama-weekend-ecards-someecards.png[/IMG][/URL]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[IMG]http://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/1621773_764602620241135_2162798962114712847_n.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[IMG]http://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/v/t1.0-9/10176166_658267957555418_7590852180557643114_n.jpg?oh=06568497d5350d629562e37d4707ce8a&oe=53AB8E03[/IMG]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[IMG]http://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1.0-9/1907952_751322308221172_785631388_n.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[IMG]http://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t1.0-9/10252132_618308218261367_6358529421723881104_n.jpg[/IMG]