Another shooting....

[urban yan]

But...your idea WAS comparable. There's no need to get all upset simply because someone essentially said "No, I don't think that's a good idea- here's why."

Did you not notice how I keep trying to walk away from this B.S. analogy and you keep steering us back?

 

[5spd_xj]

He brought up a reasonable point. You cried about it. In fact, plenty of people have brought up plenty of reasonable thoughts, facts and questions throughout this thread and you've ignored much of it.

I'm not wasting my time in this thread any longer...

 

[urban yan]

Please, tell me what I ignored -or tried to ignore- besides that Himmler comparison to the United States National Guard?

... and let me be clear, I’m not choosing to ignore the lessons of history;
I’m choosing to live without irrational fears of possible dystopic futures involving imaginary hitler and imaginary stalin.

 

[5spd_xj]

I'm not wasting my time in this thread any longer...

 

[Fullsizexj]

Please, tell me what I ignored -or tried to ignore- besides that Himmler comparison to the United States National Guard?

... and let me be clear, I’m not choosing to ignore the lessons of history;
I’m choosing to live without irrational fears of possible dystopic futures involving imaginary hitler and imaginary stalin.

so what you beleive is everything is honky dory and history could never repeat itself. No one ever said it would be just like Hitler or Stalin, they are only pointing out the steps taken to remove peoples rights that are simular. once all these rights are gone, then we are now the goverments servants when in reality they are suoposed to be there to serve us

 

[XJEEPER]

Russian citizens covet our 2nd Amendment.....brief history lesson.

Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

 

[Beezil]

No doubt, the devil is in the details. Having said that, you can't state that mental illness is the cause of this problem all the while you have the NRA lobbying against the first responder's (healthcare professionals) ability to ask those questions without a threat of a fine.

you can....

don't get the doctors involved in determining who owns a gun.

get them involved in determining if clients/patients are an imminent threat.

i'm not wild about creating empowerment, or connecting healthcare with law enforcement.

I'd at least like the hipa law relaxed, so at the very least, a family member could be contacted concerning a dangerous condition.

Xjeeper raises a terrific point when he highlighted the pattern of psychotropic and anphetamine-type drugs being prescribed without deeper consideration. And we know there's prevelance in prescibing these medications. A person can complain to a doctor about not being able to finish a page in a textbook due to a problem with concentration, and undoubtedly sent out the door with a script for Focalin. The person could also mention bouts of rage, and how he'd love to saw off the head of the family dog when he gets home, and there's not much the doctor can do except for maybe doubling the dosage.

 

[87manche]

Please, tell me what I ignored -or tried to ignore- besides that Himmler comparison to the United States National Guard?

... and let me be clear, I’m not choosing to ignore the lessons of history;
I’m choosing to live without irrational fears of possible dystopic futures involving imaginary hitler and imaginary stalin.

I merely pointed out that like Germany you wanted to make the default situation that no one can own a firearm unless they are in or have had military service.

That is patently against the 2nd amendment, and it's a very bad idea.

Then you went all "my family suffered at the hands of the Nazi's! How dare you!"

and then I responded with the statement that you, someone that has a family history of being oppressed by a government, should know best what happens when you disarm a populace and leave them defenseless.

I find it most telling that I hear a lot of people from Russia, England and Australia telling us to fight for the 2nd, wishing they'd never given up their firearms. I also find it ironic that for 100 years Bobbies in London didn't need armed, but 10 years after they took all the guns away from the population now bobbies want guns because criminals have gotten more violent and brazen. Funny how the criminals still have firearms.
Follow the logic there.

 

[urban yan]

so what you beleive is everything is honky dory and history could never repeat itself. No one ever said it would be just like Hitler or Stalin, they are only pointing out the steps taken to remove peoples rights that are simular. once all these rights are gone, then we are now the goverments servants when in reality they are suoposed to be there to serve us

If you don't want be a servant of your government than serve in your government. The best way to affect change is from within; not via stockpiling guns towards some unforeseeable dystopia. Buy guns for sport, self-defense, hunting, or anything else grounded in reality. Not some tyrannical dsytopic future.

I can understand the 2nd amendment's original intent alludes to defense against tyranny, but -- if I'm not mistaken -- Thomas Jefferson said that to ask a country to be governed by a constitution passed in previous years was like asking a grown man to wear a child’s coat.

Xjeeper raises a terrific point when he highlighted the pattern of psychotropic and anphetamine-type drugs being prescribed without deeper consideration. And we know there's prevelance in prescibing these medications. A person can complain to a doctor about not being able to finish a page in a textbook due to a problem with concentration, and undoubtedly sent out the door with a script for Focalin. The person could also mention bouts of rage, and how he'd love to saw off the head of the family dog when he gets home, and there's not much the doctor can do except for maybe doubling the dosage.

Nobody's saying doctors are perfect. Pharmaceutical reps certainly play a negative impact on their prescriptions; however, – at this moment – they are the best "front-line" only choice.
Regarding your part regarding XJEEPERs endorsement; as per usual, I disagree. Observe..

Russian citizens covet our 2nd Amendment.....brief history lesson.
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

Oh man, did you pick a doozy.

This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar....

...Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own.

Life in Russia -- under it's various Tsars -- was equally bleak; simply look at the economic disparity of that era (which led to the popularity of Lenin's philosophies), the loss of life building the port city of Saint Petersburg, or the Trans-Siberian railway (the railroad of death). The notion of "holding Russian lands (by the French, the Poles, or Germans) was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk" does not correlate to armed resistance but rather two important variables: the Russians simply abandoned Moscow whenever an invader occupied their capital, and they held a scorched earth policy. Napoleon, for example, travelled across ruins during his march towards Moscow (with little opposition), once he captured Moscow he quickly realized there was reason to stay (the Russians retreated , and even unlocked their criminals), and he had no resources exiting Russia (he retreated over Russian lands scorched by Russians) which decimated his army. Russians used their harsh climate to deal with foreign invaders more than guns. The cold weather killed more Germans than actual guns. Their history shows a very fatalistic bunch of folks. Guns did play a role during WWII, but their most devastating weapon wasn't a semi-automatic or a high capacity clip. It was a sniper rifle since they had a strong hunting tradition.

From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were.

Is this happening in America now?

....but criminals are still armed and still murdering and too often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police

Is this happening in America now?

What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or "talking to them", it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.

There you have it, forget mental illness programs; your friend of the US constitution is in favour killing mentally ill people.

There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed

I guess, Historians would constitute as communists in this fellas book.

 

[sardo_67]

I merely pointed out that like Germany you wanted to make the default situation that no one can own a firearm unless they are in or have had military service.

sip......

Follow the logic there.

well after having about 8yrs in the USMC, iraq, afghan ect ect ect.....
there are defiantly some flaws with the people who some how think military service means something.

anyone familiar with that guy Kennedy getting shot in Texas?
A Marine shot him
the guy who killed 17 and hit another 32 from the tower in Texas....
Again it was a Marine. he also used guns that most think are "sensible and practical guns" or "hunting rifles"

its Wiki but has some useful info..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

i didn't read any of the other pages here and don't really have time to get into this but here is my little bit of knowledge and strong evidence that new gun laws won't help. Ban "assault weapons" all you want but a good trigger puller can do just as much with a "sporting" gun.

i also live about 30min from the school, have very close friends who were actually affected by this and have been helping at fundraisers organized by friends who were students in that school in the 90s.

 

[urban yan]

well after having about 8yrs in the USMC, iraq, afghan ect ect ect.....
there are defiantly some flaws with the people who some how think military service means something..

My logic's that service gives you more respect for firearms, and that it makes you a more responsible gun owner. It certainly not a perfect idea.... far from it (as you've stated in your examples).

The reoccurring theme within this thread plays around that notion that irresponsible and mentally ill people are the source of these problems. Well.... we can take a bite out of mental illness by coordinating efforts with health practitioners; we can train gun-owners to use weapons more effectively against intruders; educate people to store their guns better against those unscrupulous enough to steal them (including family members) . Throw in some light-handed policies that eliminate straw purchases, and close loopholes that allow upto 40% of guns sold privately without background checks; suddenly, you have a healthier and safer gun culture that's actually sustainable for generations rather than the center of heated debates like this one.

 

[Fullsizexj]

you just don't get it do you, we are not here to serve our goverment, they are here to serve us. Do we type to fast for you to understand or what. They are not here to tell us what to do, they are our employees and are restricted to what they are allowed to do by the constitution. If they cannot follow it then they will have to removed from their positions and by definition, if they do anything unconstitutional, they can be tried for tyrany. It is pretty simple to understand by anyone with a half way decent mind. I have come to the conclusion that you are not even in this discusion to discuss but rather look for ways to try and twist things to try and make your totally useless opinions look logical

 

[XJEEPER]

If you don't want be a servant of your government than serve in your government. The best way to affect change is from within; not via stockpiling guns towards some unforeseeable dystopia. Buy guns for sport, self-defense, hunting, or anything else grounded in reality. Not some tyrannical dsytopic future.

I can understand the 2nd amendment's original intent alludes to defense against tyranny, but -- if I'm not mistaken -- Thomas Jefferson said that to ask a country to be governed by a constitution passed in previous years was like asking a grown man to wear a child’s coat.





Nobody's saying doctors are perfect. Pharmaceutical reps certainly play a negative impact on their prescriptions; however, – at this moment – they are the best "front-line" only choice.
Regarding your part regarding XJEEPERs endorsement; as per usual, I disagree. Observe..




Oh man, did you pick a doozy.




Life in Russia -- under it's various Tsars -- was equally bleak; simply look at the economic disparity of that era (which led to the popularity of Lenin's philosophies), the loss of life building the port city of Saint Petersburg, or the Trans-Siberian railway (the railroad of death). The notion of "holding Russian lands (by the French, the Poles, or Germans) was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk" does not correlate to armed resistance but rather two important variables: the Russians simply abandoned Moscow whenever an invader occupied their capital, and they held a scorched earth policy. Napoleon, for example, travelled across ruins during his march towards Moscow (with little opposition), once he captured Moscow he quickly realized there was reason to stay (the Russians retreated , and even unlocked their criminals), and he had no resources exiting Russia (he retreated over Russian lands scorched by Russians) which decimated his army. Russians used their harsh climate to deal with foreign invaders more than guns. The cold weather killed more Germans than actual guns. Their history shows a very fatalistic bunch of folks. Guns did play a role during WWII, but their most devastating weapon wasn't a semi-automatic or a high capacity clip. It was a sniper rifle since they had a strong hunting tradition.



Is this happening in America now?


Is this happening in America now?


There you have it, forget mental illness programs; your friend of the US constitution is in favour killing mentally ill people.


I guess, Historians would constitute as communists in this fellas book.

Alvin, wonder why I singled out this text from the article?

Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

Because it's the truth and relevant......nice ramble, btw. Here's another applicable TJ quote for you.......I prefer dangerous FREEDOM to peaceful SLAVERY. - Thomas Jefferson

 

[XJEEPER]

you just don't get it do you, we are not here to serve our goverment, they are here to serve us. Do we type to fast for you to understand or what. They are not here to tell us what to do, they are our employees and are restricted to what they are allowed to do by the constitution. If they cannot follow it then they will have to removed from their positions and by definition, if they do anything unconstitutional, they can be tried for tyrany. It is pretty simple to understand by anyone with a half way decent mind. I have come to the conclusion that you are not even in this discusion to discuss but rather look for ways to try and twist things to try and make your totally useless opinions look logical

Ding, ding, ding.....folks, we have a winner!!!
atriot:

 

[87manche]

My logic's that service gives you more respect for firearms, and that it makes you a more responsible gun owner. It certainly not a perfect idea.... far from it (as you've stated in your examples).

The reoccurring theme within this thread plays around that notion that irresponsible and mentally ill people are the source of these problems. Well.... we can take a bite out of mental illness by coordinating efforts with health practitioners; we can train gun-owners to use weapons more effectively against intruders; educate people to store their guns better against those unscrupulous enough to steal them (including family members) . Throw in some light-handed policies that eliminate straw purchases, and close loopholes that allow upto 40% of guns sold privately without background checks; suddenly, you have a healthier and safer gun culture that's actually sustainable for generations rather than the center of heated debates like this one.

or we can live with the understanding that a free society has risks. The framers of the Constitution understand that, living free has responsibilities and risks. Want to make sure that nothing bad ever happens? Then you have to take away freedoms, and it's unlikely that you'll keep bad things from happening anyhow.

It's not a good trade off in the long run.

 

[Beezil]

My logic's that service gives you more respect for firearms, and that it makes you a more responsible gun owner. It certainly not a perfect idea.... far from it .

you can say that again....your logic couldn't be more wrong. I mean it's ridiculously wrong. It's beyond a logical fallacy. It's totally unfounded.

 

[87manche]

you can say that again....your logic couldn't be more wrong. I mean it's ridiculously wrong. It's beyond a logical fallacy. It's totally unfounded.

I didn't address this, but it's true.

My Marine brother says that it's a problem, because they like to play games with unloaded pistols and sometimes they're not unloaded and marines get shot in the chest.

 

[sardo_67]

I didn't address this, but it's true.

My Marine brother says that it's a problem, because they like to play games with unloaded pistols and sometimes they're not unloaded and marines get shot in the chest.

oh ya the do you trust me game. ehh shit happens and sometimes people get killed, that's what happens with boredom. guy in my shop used to **** around like that, actually a few of them did when they made us carry our M-16s everywhere on the flight line. i was a jet mech so we were pretty much just civilians.

then again that's the only marine to get killed like that that i've heard of so it's really not a problem

as far as the guns go with registering and the straw purchase theory that isn't going to change anything. a straw purchace means the buyer is someone who can buy the gun legally, then gives it to someone who can't. more laws won't matter because the buyer is LEGAL. that's like cracking down on under age drinking by having 3 forms of ID to buy booze, someone over 21 will buy it with their 3 IDs then give it to kids. nothing solved.

registering guns makes sense, we can register them like we do vehicles because that's what prevents accidents and DUIs right? oh wait...... that's just so we can get taxed on them and pay the government money.

 

[87manche]

oh ya the do you trust me game. ehh shit happens and sometimes people get killed, that's what happens with boredom. guy in my shop used to **** around like that, actually a few of them did when they made us carry our M-16s everywhere on the flight line. i was a jet mech so we were pretty much just civilians.

then again that's the only marine to get killed like that that i've heard of so it's really not a problem

as far as the guns go with registering and the straw purchase theory that isn't going to change anything. a straw purchace means the buyer is someone who can buy the gun legally, then gives it to someone who can't. more laws won't matter because the buyer is LEGAL. that's like cracking down on under age drinking by having 3 forms of ID to buy booze, someone over 21 will buy it with their 3 IDs then give it to kids. nothing solved.

registering guns makes sense, we can register them like we do vehicles because that's what prevents accidents and DUIs right? oh wait...... that's just so we can get taxed on them and pay the government money.

still, even if it's just one accident, they all went through Basic, were all taught how to handle firearms safely, and yet you still have "games" with firearms.

You can't magically train someone to be responsible.

You're spot on with registration, that would turn into a giant revenue generation scheme and have the potential for terrible abuses. Luckily we already have laws that forbid federal registration. Of course BATFE seems to ignore those laws...

Urban Yan wonders why we're so concerned with our government, maybe because over the last ten years they've passed legislation that would allow them to bypass several of our rights, you know, to stop terrorists. Unfortunately they've broadened the term "terrorist" to include just about anyone that speaks out against the government. at this point "terrorist" is just a euphemism for "political dissident" to our government.

let's not even get into the fact that no one can protest where there's a secret service presence now. Hard to make yourself heard when your 1st amendment rights are sacrificed for "security"


but I'm sure that it's just my tinfoil being on too tight.

 

[sardo_67]

More laws will defiantly solve the problem. Just make it illegal to use a firearm in a crime or to kill someone. Problem solved.



Oh wait.