PDA

View Full Version : County Sheriffs Position Paper on Gun Control


nyuk nyuk
01-28-2013, 09:47 PM
Eat it, libs. (http://www.csoc.org/ppdocs/GunControlLegislation.pdf)

Pony Boy
01-29-2013, 09:22 PM
The Second Amendment separates us from all other countries.

W*GS
01-29-2013, 09:38 PM
Sheriffs are obligated to uphold the law. They do not have the power to refuse to enforce the law.

W*GS
01-29-2013, 09:38 PM
The Second Amendment separates us from all other countries.

So does our irresponsibility with guns.

ant1999e
01-29-2013, 09:54 PM
Sheriffs are obligated to uphold the law. They do not have the power to refuse to enforce the law.

Immigration...

Dukes
01-29-2013, 10:12 PM
Sheriffs are obligated to uphold the law. They do not have the power to refuse to enforce the law.

An unconstitutional law is not a law. It's pretty simple.

myMind
01-29-2013, 11:35 PM
I still dont understand why you gun nuts think the government is going to try and keep you from owning a gun. I really dont give a **** if you own a handgun, hunting rifle, or shotgun. Neither do they. A ban on civilians owning assault weapons of any kind and making the registration proccess to own normal firearms more stringent is not an attack on our constitutional rights. You can still own guns people, calm down.

...and as to the second ammendment, I also don't understand how one compound sentence, written hundreds of years ago by people who had to fight a war in their own backyard is treated like some god given right akin to drawing breathe. The world we live in now is so different. Here is a fun fact, it was suggested by our founding father Thomas Jefferson that the constitution be rewritten every 19 years, so that the dead could not rule the living.

"His argument was that if Americans weren't vital stakeholders in that foundational document, they would become distanced from governance itself," Phillips explains.
"And the politicians from the president on down would become 'like wolves.' "

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/10/143354018/reconstituting-the-constitution-how-to-rewrite-it

lonestar
01-30-2013, 01:00 AM
Eat it, libs. (http://www.csoc.org/ppdocs/GunControlLegislation.pdf)

A well written paper sating the absolute turth, that the liberal far left do not want to face.

Smaller government (less power) is abhorrent to them and are using tragedies to promote BIG BROTHER. All the while those in the know of the facts are feeling them they are wrong.

lonestar
01-30-2013, 01:06 AM
A thought on the gun ban law

 



A person steals guns, (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW),

shoots and kills his own mother (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW) ,

transports these guns loaded (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW),

brings guns onto school property (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW),

breaks into the school (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW),

discharges the weapons within city (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW),

murders 26 people , (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW)

and commits suicide (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW).


 

And there are people in this country that somehow think passing ANOTHER LAW banning guns would protect us from someone like this.

 


If you haven't noticed, people like this are not concerned about breaking laws - they only care about fulfilling their own twisted agenda.


 

The only people that a gun ban law would impact are the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, which will only serve to cripple the ability to protect Overselves.

myMind
01-30-2013, 02:01 AM
A well written paper sating the absolute turth, that the liberal far left do not want to face.

Smaller government (less power) is abhorrent to them and are using tragedies to promote BIG BROTHER. All the while those in the know of the facts are feeling them they are wrong.

You should stop posting while drunk and or in a fugue state due to your old man alzheimers. Your grammar is horrendous and it makes you come across as an ignorant hick...which I'm sure you are. I took you off of ignore just long enough to read and reaffirm my opinion of your opinions. Well...bye.

BroncoInferno
01-30-2013, 06:59 AM
An unconstitutional law is not a law. It's pretty simple.

There is a fine line between "simple" and "simplistic." How to interpret the 2nd Amendment is not nearly as cut and dry as the gun nuts wish it were.

Bottom line: it's the job of the courts to interpret the constitution, not some random county sheriff.

Requiem
01-30-2013, 07:00 AM
You should stop posting while drunk and or in a fugue state due to your old man alzheimers. Your grammar is horrendous and it makes you come across as an ignorant hick...which I'm sure you are. I took you off of ignore just long enough to read and reaffirm my opinion of your opinions. Well...bye.

Omfg. Hilarious!

DenverBrit
01-30-2013, 07:59 AM
The Second Amendment separates us from all other countries.

It sure does.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg

ant1999e
01-30-2013, 09:17 AM
You should stop posting while drunk and or in a fugue state due to your old man alzheimers. Your grammar is horrendous and it makes you come across as an ignorant hick...which I'm sure you are. I took you off of ignore just long enough to read and reaffirm my opinion of your opinions. Well...bye.

Glad you add so much to the conversation. ****ing idiot.

Requiem
01-30-2013, 09:45 AM
Don't act like you do, antsies.

That One Guy
01-30-2013, 09:59 AM
It sure does.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg

LOL

Tell me they didn't exclude Mexico just because it'd ruin their stats.

Also, how does Estonia and Slovakia make it into the developed world stats when I don't see Brazil and some of the other countries that are routinely mentioned as rough places.

myMind
01-30-2013, 10:17 AM
Glad you add so much to the conversation. ****ing idiot.

See post number seven.

DenverBrit
01-30-2013, 10:55 AM
LOL

Tell me they didn't exclude Mexico just because it'd ruin their stats.

Also, how does Estonia and Slovakia make it into the developed world stats when I don't see Brazil and some of the other countries that are routinely mentioned as rough places.

Ruin the stats?? Hilarious!

Mexico and Brazil are NICs, (newly industrialized country) somewhere between a third and first world country. That's why they are not included, neither were China or India for the same reason.

How does that effect the US gun murder rate??

It is by far the worst industrialized country, no other comes close, and is topped only by mostly war zones and lawless countries. Gun ownership may not be the sole cause, but arming every idiot, wacko, gang banger and terrorist in the country is.

But, USA, USA, we're number 1. (grunt for full effect) Better?? :)

http://abcnews.go.com/images/International/homocides_g8_countries_640x360_wmain.jpg

TonyR
01-30-2013, 11:15 AM
Ruin the stats?? Hilarious!


Right?!? And even if Mexico were included, and their number was higher, would that somehow make our high number okay? "We're bad, but at least we're not as bad as Mexico!"

TonyR
01-30-2013, 11:21 AM
I still dont understand why you gun nuts think the government is going to try and keep you from owning a gun. I really dont give a **** if you own a handgun, hunting rifle, or shotgun. Neither do they. A ban on civilians owning assault weapons of any kind and making the registration proccess to own normal firearms more stringent is not an attack on our constitutional rights. You can still own guns people, calm down.

These people desperately need someone/something to be mad at, to be scared of, to blame. And you can't change anything. Progress is not allowed, and any attempt to fix something is a threat to their very way of life. So much easier for them to have good guys and bad guys, black and white.

That One Guy
01-30-2013, 11:31 AM
Ruin the stats?? Hilarious!

Mexico and Brazil are NICs, (newly industrialized country) somewhere between a third and first world country. That's why they are not included, neither were China or India for the same reason.

How does that effect the US gun murder rate??

It is by far the worst industrialized country, no other comes close, and is topped only by mostly war zones and lawless countries. Gun ownership may not be the sole cause, but arming every idiot, wacko, gang banger and terrorist in the country is.

But, USA, USA, we're number 1. (grunt for full effect) Better?? :)

http://abcnews.go.com/images/International/homocides_g8_countries_640x360_wmain.jpg

Ruin the effect, I guess, might be a better way to put it.

That One Guy
01-30-2013, 11:33 AM
These people desperately need someone/something to be mad at, to be scared of, to blame.

LOL

The irony. This is exactly the thing driving the gun control measures.

Rohirrim
01-30-2013, 12:28 PM
Thanks for your two cents, Rosco P. Coltrane.

TonyR
01-30-2013, 12:40 PM
This is exactly the thing driving the gun control measures.

Oh? So on the one hand we have gun control measures which are perfectly reasonable, whereas on the other hand we have a fear that these controls will take away both one's guns and one's rights, which is not reasonable.

The idea of gun control measures is based on the obvious factual evidence showing that guns are misused for violence in this country, that guns are too easily accessed, and that there is no good use for certain types of guns. Somehow this common sense is then taken as the evil government trying to create a totalitarian police state.

Yes, exactly the same...

Dukes
01-30-2013, 01:08 PM
I still dont understand why you gun nuts think the government is going to try and keep you from owning a gun. I really dont give a **** if you own a handgun, hunting rifle, or shotgun. Neither do they. A ban on civilians owning assault weapons of any kind and making the registration proccess to own normal firearms more stringent is not an attack on our constitutional rights. You can still own guns people, calm down.

Yeah, they don't want to confiscate guns. You're right.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ryUbJfg4tAo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That One Guy
01-30-2013, 01:18 PM
Oh? So on the one hand we have gun control measures which are perfectly reasonable, whereas on the other hand we have a fear that these controls will take away both one's guns and one's rights, which is not reasonable.

The idea of gun control measures is based on the obvious factual evidence showing that guns are misused for violence in this country, that guns are too easily accessed, and that there is no good use for certain types of guns. Somehow this common sense is then taken as the evil government trying to create a totalitarian police state.

Yes, exactly the same...

So what exactly changed in the late 90s which caused school shootings and murderous rampages to become so common? A new bullet? Gun prices dropped?

Pony Boy
01-30-2013, 02:50 PM
Sheriffs are obligated to uphold the law. They do not have the power to refuse to enforce the law.

I take it you're a big city guy and have never been in any of the thousands of rural areas where the local sheriff is the law.

Local Sheriffs are not appointed by the federal government. They are elected by the local citizens and will uphold and enforce the laws according to the priority and needs of the people that elect him and sign his pay check.

It's the same as the high school football coach, if he doesn't listen to the local town business owners that support the school and the members of the school board, he will be coaching somewhere else next season.

Also more than likely the local sheriff will be a card carrying member of the NRA.

W*GS
01-30-2013, 03:09 PM
I take it you're a big city guy and have never been in any of the thousands of rural areas where the local sheriff is the law.

Local Sheriffs are not appointed by the federal government. They are elected by the local citizens and will uphold and enforce the laws according to the priority and needs of the people that elect him and sign his pay check.

The sheriff does not get to decide which laws pass muster and which don't.

If the local citizens want him to run all the gays out of town, he cannot follow their "needs".

All LEOs must enforce the law as it is, not what they wish it was. Period.

That One Guy
01-30-2013, 03:47 PM
The sheriff does not get to decide which laws pass muster and which don't.

If the local citizens want him to run all the gays out of town, he cannot follow their "needs".

All LEOs must enforce the law as it is, not what they wish it was. Period.

"Lack of resources" then looking the other way is the oldest move in the book.

Pony Boy
01-30-2013, 04:13 PM
The sheriff does not get to decide which laws pass muster and which don't.

If the local citizens want him to run all the gays out of town, he cannot follow their "needs".

All LEOs must enforce the law as it is, not what they wish it was. Period.

JFC ....... what rock did you crawl out from under, you do know that local sheriffs are elected and are usually good old boys that grew up in the community right? The local sheriff in my town plays in the big Thursday night poker game (Illegal) and then watches everybody drive home after a few too many beers (illegal). He is also the first in line to pickup his football betting cards (illegal). He will probably be elected again next year by a wide margin.

I would be willing to bet several of those Colorado sheriffs that signed that letter fit the same profile.

W*GS
01-30-2013, 06:22 PM
JFC ....... what rock did you crawl out from under, you do know that local sheriffs are elected and are usually good old boys that grew up in the community right? The local sheriff in my town plays in the big Thursday night poker game (Illegal) and then watches everybody drive home after a few too many beers (illegal). He is also the first in line to pickup his football betting cards (illegal). He will probably be elected again next year by a wide margin.

I would be willing to bet several of those Colorado sheriffs that signed that letter fit the same profile.

In other words, troglodyte sheriffs from troglodyte areas will do as they want.

No surprise there.

They're violating their oath of office when they do so, you know.

lonestar
01-30-2013, 08:40 PM
You should stop posting while drunk and or in a fugue state due to your old man alzheimers. Your grammar is horrendous and it makes you come across as an ignorant hick...which I'm sure you are. I took you off of ignore just long enough to read and reaffirm my opinion of your opinions. Well...bye.

well there you go thinking again.

Just another one of the mindless libs that need to change the subject, or attack when they can not refute a statement..

Ms. King in second grade was a grammar Nazi also, it matter back then, today I could less about what a far left liberal thinks..

read or do not read I will not lose any sleep over it..

My post was for those that have the ability to think for themselves.. Clearly you do not..

sorry but I can't help myself.. mymind is a terrible thing to waste..

lonestar
01-30-2013, 08:42 PM
Glad you add so much to the conversation. ****ing idiot.

:thumbs:

kind of thinking the same thing Myself..

when unable to refute attack, attack, attack..

lonestar
01-30-2013, 08:46 PM
So what exactly changed in the late 90s which caused school shootings and murderous rampages to become so common? A new bullet? Gun prices dropped?

I'll take a Wild Assed Guess Gun Free Zones..

lonestar
01-30-2013, 08:49 PM
I take it you're a big city guy and have never been in any of the thousands of rural areas where the local sheriff is the law.

Local Sheriffs are not appointed by the federal government. They are elected by the local citizens and will uphold and enforce the laws according to the priority and needs of the people that elect him and sign his pay check.

It's the same as the high school football coach, if he doesn't listen to the local town business owners that support the school and the members of the school board, he will be coaching somewhere else next season.

Also more than likely the local sheriff will be a card carrying member of the NRA.

he will be the guy that waits 45 minutes for the Police to arrive in a home invasion.. then whine and cry about how slow the response was IF they showed up at all..

ahahahahahahahaha

lonestar
01-30-2013, 08:51 PM
JFC ....... what rock did you crawl out from under, you do know that local sheriffs are elected and are usually good old boys that grew up in the community right? The local sheriff in my town plays in the big Thursday night poker game (Illegal) and then watches everybody drive home after a few too many beers (illegal). He is also the first in line to pickup his football betting cards (illegal). He will probably be elected again next year by a wide margin.

I would be willing to bet several of those Colorado sheriffs that signed that letter fit the same profile.

I'll also bet that real crime is under control where he is the law..

Also bet he is a conservative.. not a flaming liberal..

nyuk nyuk
01-31-2013, 10:25 AM
Sheriffs are obligated to uphold the law. They do not have the power to refuse to enforce the law.

No, that's what federal agencies and the White House are for. When those higher-ups tell the locals to ignore the law, the locals are expected to march lockstep.

nyuk nyuk
01-31-2013, 10:28 AM
I still dont understand why you gun nuts think the government is going to try and keep you from owning a gun. I really dont give a **** if you own a handgun, hunting rifle, or shotgun. Neither do they. A ban on civilians owning assault weapons of any kind and making the registration proccess to own normal firearms more stringent is not an attack on our constitutional rights. You can still own guns people, calm down.

If you cared to get off your can and read the paper instead of blindly dismissing it, you'd find an answer to this.

Just saying.

nyuk nyuk
01-31-2013, 10:34 AM
These people desperately need someone/something to be mad at, to be scared of, to blame. And you can't change anything. Progress is not allowed, and any attempt to fix something is a threat to their very way of life. So much easier for them to have good guys and bad guys, black and white.

If you actually believed this drivel, you'd call for strict restrictions on alcohol sales, if not outright bans on booze. After all, when that many are killed each year by drunken drivers, we should all be frightened/threatened/outraged that something isn't being done to put a stop to it. Yet you and yours utter not one word or lift one finger, unless it's to lift a mug of ale to your chops.

NO, instead we're told to ban "assault weapons" of which the definition is vague and nearly 100% based on the cosmetic appearance of the gun which basically translates to "it's big and scary and something the Terminator would carry" based on nothing more than rare, small numbers of people actually being hurt/killed by these weapons by very rare abusers of the weapon.

Now that is MENSA-worthy, brah.

Shelf that one under Why I'm No Longer a Liberal.

nyuk nyuk
01-31-2013, 10:36 AM
LOL

The irony. This is exactly the thing driving the gun control measures.

BINGO.

There is nothing rational in this whatsoever, and the sheriffs report in the opening post in here explains that in detail - yet these gun snatchers come in here, refuse to read what the sheriffs say, and try to defecate everywhere.

BroncoInferno
01-31-2013, 10:44 AM
If you actually believed this drivel, you'd call for strict restrictions on alcohol sales, if not outright bans on booze. After all, when that many are killed each year by drunken drivers, we should all be frightened/threatened/outraged that something isn't being done to put a stop to it. Yet you and yours utter not one word or lift one finger, unless it's to lift a mug of ale to your chops.

What the hell are you talking about? We have laws restricting the possession/use of alcohol, dumbass. You're not allowed to operate a vehicle while impaired, you aren't allowed to have an open container in your vehicle, and you aren't allowed to possess/consume alcohol before the age of 21. You are allowed to possess/drink alcohol as long as you're over 21 and not operating a vehicle while impaired. You know, what sane people call common sense restrictions.

nyuk nyuk
01-31-2013, 10:57 AM
What the hell are you talking about? We have laws restricting the possession/use of alcohol, dumbass. You're not allowed to operate a vehicle while impaired, you aren't allowed to have an open container in your vehicle, and you aren't allowed to possess/consume alcohol before the age of 21. You are allowed to possess/drink alcohol as long as you're over 21 and not operating a vehicle while impaired. You know, what sane people call common sense restrictions.

LMAO. We already have laws on the safe/legal use of guns.

So what are you whining about?

Alcohol law violations kill far more than "assault weapons" ever could/did. So be consistent. Ban your booze.

DenverBrit
01-31-2013, 12:47 PM
Ruin the effect, I guess, might be a better way to put it.

I don't think anything could 'ruin the effect' of the US murder rate.

Lowering it might though, now there's a thought.

Why is it that any discussion about guns after a mass murder appears off limits? In fact, any discussion seems to get translated into....'they're coming to take our guns away,' which of course is exactly the message the lobbyists want to project.
And for the NRA, it's a cash windfall every time.

Is it really so difficult to get bi-partisan talks about gun murders and real solutions, instead of more of the same rhetoric we get every time? We all have a vested interest in closing loopholes and keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, criminals, terrorists etc.

So far, the gun lobby's answer has been, we need more guns!!

Has anyone read this yet??
http://www.mlscommunication.com/images/ricochet-200.jpg
From internecine warfare, media manipulation, and executive bankrolling to gun control bills and school massacres, Richard Feldman, former NRA regional political director and lobbyist for the firearm industry, exposes the NRA as a cynical, mercenary political cult obsessed with wielding power while exploiting members' fear in order to maximize contributions.

The upshot is that the NRA is not an effective advocate for its members' interests. Obsessed with fundraising, scare-mongering, and wielding political power, NRA leadership undermines commonsense solutions that would protect gun owners' rights while reducing accidental shootings and gun violence.

"Ricochet tells the truth.
With each page I can hear the echo of footsteps down the Rayburn Building's marbled halls as Feldman tells the intimate story few know and even fewer survive"
-- Hon. Jack Brooks, former Chairman U.S. House Judiciary Committee

"Ricochet casts an eye-opening spotlight on the shadowy world of behind-the-scenes gun politics.
Is it accurate? Absolutely! I was there."
-- John Aquilino, former Director NRA Public Education

"Ricochet is right on target. Feldman's behind-the-scenes memoir vividly describes America's firearms debate
and struggle to win in extraordinary detail. I thoroughly enjoyed it."
-- John W. Magaw, former Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

http://www.mlscommunication.com/

That One Guy
01-31-2013, 02:51 PM
^Nobody is interested in talks of any sort. Everyone has their mind made up. Anyone that can speak absolutely on the topic at all is merely comfortable in speaking despite ignorance.

DenverBrit
01-31-2013, 03:03 PM
This a classic case of a complex problem requiring simple solutions.

That One Guy
01-31-2013, 03:29 PM
This a classic case of a complex problem requiring simple solutions.

The problem is we disagree on what the problem is.

DenverBrit
01-31-2013, 04:59 PM
The problem is we disagree on what the problem is.

I see the problem as too many innocents being murdered by guns. It is complex, multifaceted and to some degree, divides us.

What do you see?

That One Guy
01-31-2013, 05:16 PM
I see the problem as too many innocents being murdered by guns. It is complex, multifaceted and to some degree, divides us.

What do you see?

So the number would be ok if it weren't guns killing them? Or should your statement be simply that too many innocent people are being murdered?

DenverBrit
01-31-2013, 05:43 PM
So the number would be ok if it weren't guns killing them? Or should your statement be simply that too many innocent people are being murdered?

That's what you got from my comment? No wonder the NRA are so successful. Uhh

If you can't handle the notion that guns are involved in the vast majority of murders, then you are in denial.

Feel free to list the mass murders in the US by knives, blunt instruments and explosions and we'll compare.

That One Guy
01-31-2013, 08:59 PM
That's what you got from my comment? No wonder the NRA are so successful. Uhh

If you can't handle the notion that guns are involved in the vast majority of murders, then you are in denial.

Feel free to list the mass murders in the US by knives, blunt instruments and explosions and we'll compare.

It was a mockery of your position. As I said, you have your position determined already so I know better than to bite.

DenverBrit
01-31-2013, 09:07 PM
It was a mockery of your position. As I said, you have your position determined already so I know better than to bite.

You're right, I believe the discussion needs to take place, and like everyone else, I have some opinions and suggestions, which I have given.

That's why it's called a 'discussion'.

You don't have a position??

myMind
01-31-2013, 09:40 PM
If you cared to get off your can and read the paper instead of blindly dismissing it, you'd find an answer to this.

Just saying.

I do read the paper and am a very active person. Not sure what your point was. My statement wasn't made from ignorance. Im just not a paranoid gun nut. Show me one bill proposed so far that will confiscate handguns, hunting rifles, or shotguns. Oh wait, you cant because there arent any. I fully support the ban on assault rifles however, no civilian can possibly need one. The may want one, but they don't need it.

Dukes
02-01-2013, 06:42 AM
I do read the paper and am a very active person. Not sure what your point was. My statement wasn't made from ignorance. Im just not a paranoid gun nut. Show me one bill proposed so far that will confiscate handguns, hunting rifles, or shotguns. Oh wait, you cant because there arent any. I fully support the ban on assault rifles however, no civilian can possibly need one. The may want one, but they don't need it.

I already did, you just decided to ignore it.

Rohirrim
02-01-2013, 07:43 AM
I do read the paper and am a very active person. Not sure what your point was. My statement wasn't made from ignorance. Im just not a paranoid gun nut. Show me one bill proposed so far that will confiscate handguns, hunting rifles, or shotguns. Oh wait, you cant because there arent any. I fully support the ban on assault rifles however, no civilian can possibly need one. The may want one, but they don't need it.

That's really the point. It is not the defense of rights or the fear for our liberty that drives the gun industry in America. It is paranoia. After the Sandy Hook massacre what happened? People went out and bought more guns and ammo. After every "event" people rush out and buy more guns and ammo. Even people who already have a closet full of guns and ammo. They're kind of the paranoid equivalent of cat ladies. Isn't one enough?

Pony Boy
02-01-2013, 10:57 AM
That's really the point. It is not the defense of rights or the fear for our liberty that drives the gun industry in America. It is paranoia. After the Sandy Hook massacre what happened? People went out and bought more guns and ammo. After every "event" people rush out and buy more guns and ammo. Even people who already have a closet full of guns and ammo. They're kind of the paranoid equivalent of cat ladies. Isn't one enough?

My wife buys shoes and purses and I built her an extra closet just for them.

It keeps her from asking me how guns I have in my gun safe and stashed away in the garage attic.

myMind
02-01-2013, 11:34 AM
I already did, you just decided to ignore it.

If you think that video you posted was a bill that proposed to confiscate anything but assault rifles you might want to watch it again.

Here, we can watch it together.

Yeah, they don't want to confiscate guns. You're right.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ryUbJfg4tAo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



I don't even think this is a bill proposal, just a motion on the floor that isn't brought up because both sides don't have the proper paperwork. Funny to see the brilliance of the political machine firsthand. So streamlined...and efficient.
Regardless, please give me a time mark on the video where anything other than assault rifles are mentioned. Thank you.

TonyR
02-01-2013, 11:44 AM
If you actually believed this drivel, you'd call for strict restrictions on alcohol sales, if not outright bans on booze. After all, when that many are killed each year by drunken drivers, we should all be frightened/threatened/outraged that something isn't being done to put a stop to it.

Ah, yes, the facile comparison of guns to alcohol and drunk driving.

Drunk driving fatalities involve two "weapons" being "misused", alcohol and automobiles. First, comparing guns to alcohol, guns are always a threat. A loaded gun is always deadly, always poses a risk. Alcohol, on the other hand, is not dangerous in moderation, and by itself is not inherently dangerous to anyone other than the user (assuming said user does not practice moderation). Second, comparing guns to automobiles, guns don't have necessary utility in society to nearly the extent automobiles do. Yes, I suppose a very small percentage of people need guns to hunt for their food. And yes, hunting is necessary to reduce the numbers of certain wild animals. But the "control" of guns wouldn't harm the ability for guns to provide this limited utility, whereas I'm not sure how you'd "control" automobiles any more than they are controlled now. Or how you'd attempt to even begin to compare the utility of automobiles, which are a huge and necessary part of the economy on many levels, to that of guns.

Nobody is suggesting outlawing or eliminating guns. Your overreaction to attempts to reasonably place limits on them is silly.

Rohirrim
02-01-2013, 11:50 AM
Since the second amendment says that people need muskets in case we need to raise a militia, I figure muskets is what they meant.

Pony Boy
02-02-2013, 08:15 AM
Expanded Homicide Data Table
Murder Victims by Weapon, 2011
Total 12,664

Handguns 6,220
Rifles 323
Shotguns 356
Other guns 97

Firearms, type not stated 1,587
Knives or cutting instruments 1,694
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) 496
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) 728


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Dukes
02-02-2013, 08:26 AM
Since the second amendment says that people need muskets in case we need to raise a militia, I figure muskets is what they meant.

Guess we can ban the internet too. They only had a printing press during that time.

That One Guy
02-02-2013, 08:50 AM
You're right, I believe the discussion needs to take place, and like everyone else, I have some opinions and suggestions, which I have given.

That's why it's called a 'discussion'.

You don't have a position??

Of course I have a position. The difference is I came up with my position and my position respects that SOMETHING needs done but doesn't take a leap of faith on a premise which has no backing. Yours, however, appears to be a regurgitation of what you read and hear so it's not worth discussing.

You have no foundational premise nor do you have a desired goa or endstatel. You just think the boogyman they created sounds viable enough so you're willing to try something and see what happens.

DenverBrit
02-02-2013, 10:10 AM
Of course I have a position. The difference is I came up with my position and my position respects that SOMETHING needs done but doesn't take a leap of faith on a premise which has no backing. Yours, however, appears to be a regurgitation of what you read and hear so it's not worth discussing.

You have no foundational premise nor do you have a desired goa or endstatel. You just think the boogyman they created sounds viable enough so you're willing to try something and see what happens.


Great, then I won't waste any more time with you, and your peculiar and inexplicable high opinion of yourself. :P

BroncoBeavis
02-12-2013, 01:31 PM
Thought this was pretty funny/sad.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130209,0,4414028.story

As the vehicle approached the house, officers opened fire, unloading a barrage of bullets into the back of the truck. When the shooting stopped, they quickly realized their mistake. The truck was not a Nissan Titan, but a Toyota Tacoma. The color wasn't gray, but aqua blue. And it wasn't Dorner inside the truck, but a woman and her mother delivering copies of the Los Angeles Times.....

Law enforcement sources told The Times that at least seven officers opened fire. On Friday, the street was pockmarked with bullet holes in cars, trees, garage doors and roofs. Residents said they wanted to know what happened.

"How do you mistake two Hispanic women, one who is 71, for a large black male?" said Richard Goo, 62, who counted five bullet holes in the entryway to his house.

Glen T. Jonas, the attorney representing the women, said the police officers gave "no commands, no instructions and no opportunity to surrender" before opening fire. He described a terrifying encounter in which the pair were in the early part of their delivery route through several South Bay communities. Hernandez was in the back seat handing papers to her daughter, who was driving. Carranza would briefly slow the truck to throw papers on driveways and front walks.

Guess we should look into restricting LAPD to muskets, just for public safety.

DenverBrit
02-12-2013, 02:09 PM
This event was used to illustrate the dangers of arming teachers, or anyone without intensive gun training, in schools.

Their point was that even trained officers can be way off target when under fire.

New York (CNN) -- On a busy Friday morning in Manhattan, nine pedestrians suffered bullet or fragment wounds after police unleashed a hail of gunfire at a man wielding a .45 caliber pistol who had just killed a former co-worker.

The officers unloaded 16 rounds in the shadow of the Empire State Building at a disgruntled former apparel designer, killing him after he engaged in a gunbattle with police, authorities said.

Three passersby sustained direct gunshot wounds, while the remaining six were hit by fragments, according to New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. All injuries were caused by police, he said Saturday.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting

From another article.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.1260.639.jpg

TonyR
02-12-2013, 02:29 PM
Guess we should look into restricting LAPD to muskets, just for public safety.

LOL You both widely missed the point and made a case for gun control instead of against it. Other than that, your post was just great! :rofl:

So, yes. "Funny/sad". Or something like that!

BroncoBeavis
02-12-2013, 03:06 PM
LOL You both widely missed the point and made a case for gun control instead of against it. Other than that, your post was just great! :rofl:

So, yes. "Funny/sad". Or something like that!

Not sure what point I missed.

And I think in just about every case, gun control advocates say we should leave high cap magazines and 'assault' style weapons to "da perfeshunals" who we see putting on a skills clinic there in LA.

There's just as much ineptitude and corruption in law enforcement as there is anywhere else. I don't see how giving them impunity is the right prescription in a truly free society.

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5115b765/turbine/la-1356947-me-0207-shoot-02-rrc.jpg-20130208/580/580x378

"To Protect and Serve." LOL

TonyR
02-13-2013, 07:46 AM
Not sure what point I missed...

...There's just as much ineptitude and corruption in law enforcement as there is anywhere else.

Keep back pedaling. You look like Rahim Moore on that 70 yard Flacco to Jacoby Jones debacle!

The point it blatantly clear. If trained police officers demonstrate such ineptitude, imagine the mayhem if such weapons were prevalent in the hands of amateurs. In other words, you're making a clear case for more control over such weapons, not less. This really isn't that hard to figure out.

Dr. Broncenstein
02-13-2013, 08:04 AM
This event was used to illustrate the dangers of arming teachers, or anyone without intensive gun training, in schools.

Their point was that even trained officers can be way off target when under fire.




What happens to the accuracy and rate of fire of a mass murderer walking calmly from room to room and shooting unarmed victims when he unexpectantly encounters return fire? Gun control advocates seem to ignore this.

BroncoBeavis
02-13-2013, 08:14 AM
Keep back pedaling. You look like Rahim Moore on that 70 yard Flacco to Jacoby Jones debacle!

The point it blatantly clear. If trained police officers demonstrate such ineptitude, imagine the mayhem if such weapons were prevalent in the hands of amateurs. In other words, you're making a clear case for more control over such weapons, not less. This really isn't that hard to figure out.

This is hilarious. 7 cops on the lookout for a black man in a Grey Toyota open fire on two Latinas in a Blue Nissan, and your response is "Imagine what wooooodah happened without all that gummint traynin theys got"

Every one of them is a danger to the public should be out of a job. Instead they'll probably get a paid vaca... err I mean 'suspension' I mean cuz all's they need is some more government trainin. You know, so the State can impart the wisdom ta not open fire on vehicles without having any idea who's inside. I wonder if that's like a true or false question on the test, or if it's more of an essay type question. LOL

You really do want to keep layering the planet in rubber padding until the day when there are no more retards (the end of time) don't you? Problem, though. what happens when the authorities aren't just retarded, but corrupt? Please tell me you believe that doesn't happen.

BroncoBeavis
02-13-2013, 09:43 AM
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr02/2013/2/11/17/enhanced-buzz-11724-1360620053-0.jpg. LOL

DenverBrit
02-13-2013, 10:41 AM
What happens to the accuracy and rate of fire of a mass murderer walking calmly from room to room and shooting unarmed victims when he unexpectantly encounters return fire? Gun control advocates seem to ignore this.

Maybe you can find some stats to answer your question.

Of course, you're assuming a teacher wouldn't just freeze, or add to the carnage as cops did when they hit 9 bystanders while aiming at one individual.

In the same vein.

Columbine High School Had Armed Guard During Massacre In 1999

In 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 15 people and wounded 23 more at Columbine High School. The destruction occurred despite the fact that there was an armed security officer at the school and another one nearby -- exactly what LaPierre argued on Friday was the answer to stopping "a bad guy with a gun."

Deputy Neil Gardner was a 15-year veteran of the Jefferson County, Colo., Sheriff’s Office assigned as the uniformed officer at Columbine. According to an account compiled by the police department, Gardner fired on Harris but was unsuccessful in stopping him:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html

TonyR
02-13-2013, 10:47 AM
Beavis, I know you're smarter than you're putting on here. That or your pride is ****ing with you, not wanting to admit how wrong you are.

Again, this is very simple. Stop your flailing and rambling which is further proving my point and further defeating yours (whatever it is, which is uncertain). As incompetent as those police officers were the gen pop is going to be more incompetent. So obviously it is in everyone's best interst that there are fewer guns in the hands of the gen pop, not more. Do you disagree with this very simple premise?

BroncoBeavis
02-13-2013, 11:28 AM
Beavis, I know you're smarter than you're putting on here. That or your pride is ****ing with you, not wanting to admit how wrong you are.

Again, this is very simple. Stop your flailing and rambling which is further proving my point and further defeating yours (whatever it is, which is uncertain). As incompetent as those police officers were the gen pop is going to be more incompetent. So obviously it is in everyone's best interst that there are fewer guns in the hands of the gen pop, not more. Do you disagree with this very simple premise?

"Street Justice" is what one of the lawyers involved called it. It's really a product of the Police force deciding they weren't going to apprehend their suspect, but assassinate him. They made themselves the law. And they were so jacked up for it, they lost their cool. No opportunity to surrender, or even identify.

It's lynch-mob mentality in the 21st century. And the more relative power over the population police wield, the more of this you'll see. Mind you, not all cops are wired like this. Tons of great guys/gals out there. But even they'll tell you there's a good number of cops out there who went into Police work for all those wrong reasons.

In the end they need be held just as suspect as the rest of us.

lonestar
02-13-2013, 02:46 PM
What happens to the accuracy and rate of fire of a mass murderer walking calmly from room to room and shooting unarmed victims when he unexpectantly encounters return fire? Gun control advocates seem to ignore this.

An amazing concept logical thought process. I thought that was absent from OM.

TonyR
02-20-2013, 09:14 AM
Congress in the mid-1990s forbade the federal government to fund its own research into the health risks presented by guns. By now, however, enough research has been done by privately funded scholars that the surgeon general could write a report based on existing material. Such a report would surely reach the conclusion that a gun in the home greatly elevates risks of suicide, lethal accident and fatal domestic violence. The first step to changing gun policy is to change public attitudes about guns, as Americans previously changed their attitudes about tobacco and drunken driving. The surgeon general can lead that attitude change with more authority than any other public official. http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/18/opinion/frum-obama-plan-b-on-guns/

lonestar
02-20-2013, 09:38 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/18/opinion/frum-obama-plan-b-on-guns/

absolutely correct .. yet how do you factor out the BIASES of those that write said reports or for that matter fund them..

sorry but since the surgeon general is an employee of and serves at pleasure of the president do you really believe it would not be biased?

BroncoBeavis
02-20-2013, 09:59 AM
To the canard that gun ownership drives suicide rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Smells like cow **** up in here.

nyuk nyuk
02-21-2013, 05:05 PM
To the canard that gun ownership drives suicide rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Smells like cow **** up in here.

People who want to kill themselves will use whatever means they have the guts to use, be it guns, pills, or chemicals. Perhaps we should ban Tylenol due to this, also?

This is yet again selective hysteria.

nyuk nyuk
02-21-2013, 05:06 PM
Columbine High School Had Armed Guard During Massacre In 1999

And? Surprise - there's no such thing as a foolproof life.

nyuk nyuk
02-21-2013, 05:11 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/18/opinion/frum-obama-plan-b-on-guns/

I'm absolutely and totally floored that CNN would say that. I'm blindsided, didn't see it coming at all. They're total professionals - not known for activist journalism in any way, shape, or form.