NFR Gun control

Status
Not open for further replies.
#31
That stuff will have to go through Congress. The president can't EO that through because it violates the second amendment. Congress will have to pass a law. I expect that they will.

#2 on that list bothers the fuk out of me. Currently you have to be convicted by a court or jury of your peers to loose your gun rights. Right now even that is broken and innocent people loose their rights every day. There's no due process in #2. Guess, from now on we'll all have to remember to never piss off a doctor.
From my perspective it concerns the sharing of information between Health Care professionals and Law Enforcement for the purpose of background checks and entering that information into a national database. My guess is it is related to emotional instability and mental health disorders.
I'd like to know how that pertains to conviction by a jury in the courts?

Lugan, in so far as the Newtown Shooter,


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...n-shooter-did-not-use-assault-weapon-n1475045


In the video skip to the 4:10 mark and hear a newscaster say that there were 4 handguns found inside the school and the AR15 was left in the trunk. If you skip to the 5:00 mark you can see a police officer removing a weapon from the trunk and operation the tell-tale rear mounted charging handle of the AR to clear the weapon.
 

GAT

Dumbfounded
#32
Considering the majority of those polled indicated they wanted stricter gun laws after the six year olds were killed with a reported assault rifle, I suppose there is a chance that it is possible a bill might pass through Congress but considering the rift in Congress right now, I'd be surprised if such a bill did pass.

I don't believe Obama thinks such a bill will pass but he must have felt that he had to make an effort due to the public opinion in regards to nut cases killing massive numbers of people... especially six year olds. If no bill passes, I doubt if he'll lose any sleep over that fact. He never pushed for gun control when he was running for reelection. If it wasn't for the latest killings, I doubt if he would have even tried.

As far as if he used an assault rifle or handguns, it probably doesn't matter much. It isn't clear what the wing nut used in the school but the wacko was using an AR15 for sure at the theater.

Whatever he used fired a lot of shots in a very short period of time. As a gun owner, if they are going to ban guns, I'd actual rather it be an assault riffle than automatic handguns.

Assault rifles were banned before. It would have no effect on me personally if they were again. Banning automatic handguns would definitely effect me.
 
#33
From my perspective it concerns the sharing of information between Health Care professionals and Law Enforcement for the purpose of background checks and entering that information into a national database. My guess is it is related to emotional instability and mental health disorders.
I'd like to know how that pertains to conviction by a jury in the courts?
There is no Due Process. Any doctor can make a report that will bar someone from being able to purchase a firearm and no form of verifying the doctors claim has been provided.

To compare, currently a PFA (Protection From Abuse) can be filed by any one against any one. This will automatically remove the 2nd amendment rights from whomever was served the PFA if the court upholds the order. The person served has the right to contest the order and have his rights restored.

From what I've read, there is no legal recourse for a person being accused of being mentally unstable to contest a report from a doctor. Of course, I still haven't seen the actual executive orders. Like I said, don't piss off any doctors.
 

GAT

Dumbfounded
#34
There's no "due process" these days anyway. If you're called a "terrorist" (whatever that is) by the government, they can toss you in jail forever with no legal council.

Besides, if my doctor wants to know if I own any guns I won't tell him and instead, seek out a different doctor.
 

freestoneangler

Not to be confused with Freestone
#35
There is no Due Process. Any doctor can make a report that will bar someone from being able to purchase a firearm and no form of verifying the doctors claim has been provided.

To compare, currently a PFA (Protection From Abuse) can be filed by any one against any one. This will automatically remove the 2nd amendment rights from whomever was served the PFA if the court upholds the order. The person served has the right to contest the order and have his rights restored.

From what I've read, there is no legal recourse for a person being accused of being mentally unstable to contest a report from a doctor. Of course, I still haven't seen the actual executive orders. Like I said, don't piss off any doctors.
I'm already hearing rumors that some Doc's are considering taking payment for services in ammo and hardware :D
 

GAT

Dumbfounded
#37
First vampires. Then werewolves. Then vampires and werewolves. Now zombies. Other than watching grade B 1950 horror flicks, where are they getting this stuff?
 

Krusty

Active Member
#38
You know...one of the things I like about this forum is the pretty high general degree of civility in these sorts of discussions. Frankly, I don't know why you let people like me in here.

As a former Jarhead (and don't give me a lecture on Marine's never referring to ourselves as 'former'....when the one thing we NEVER do is refer to ourselves as ex-Marines)...I have an affinity for guns, as well as concern for keeping such lethal tools out of the hands of dingbats.

Somehow, we let pandora's weapons box open to such people....and I haven't a clue how it could ever be shut again. Gun ownership is intrinsic to the American way...somehow we've got to solve this puzzle without violating that basic principle.

I've seen some NRA types (and i'm a member) argue that even felons should be able to possess guns. Sorry, but felons, and the mentally ill, simply can't be trusted with the responsibility. There's gotta be some balance.
 

o mykiss

Active Member
#40
I know of nothing that could put a total halt to gun violence. Certainly not the feble proposals that the Prez floated today. But rather than focusing on childish parameters such as whether a gun closely resembles one that would be issued to a modern soldier, it might be more productive to look at another issue - or rather, non-issue, since it's never mentioned. What about the effectively unfettered access to and possession of guns by people who, supposedly, aren't supposed to have them.

Example: Notoreuz, age 26 and a gang member since puberty, is paroled from his most recent stretch in prison, back to his grandmother's home in Chicago or East L. A. As a convicted felon, he is of course prohibited from owning firearms. So imagine the public shock when, a few weeks later, he is arrested during a shootout/robbery at a neighborhood convenience store or shooting from a moving car a rival gang member. However, there he is in the police headlights, gun in hand. How could that have happened?

Actually, nobody is surprised. And yet, nothing whatsoever was done to prevent him from rejoining his criminal subculture. In actual practice, society decided to treat him according to the Honor System. Since we can be certain that most of the younger males in his neighborhood are armed to the teeth, why aren't police and parole officers combing through every room of every building there, including under his grandmother's mattress, every few days on a random but systematic basis? Before you rejoin: "But the constitution protects citizens against unreasonable and arbitrary searches," I respond: "Unreasonable? Sez who?"
Nice try. Newtown shooter - white middle class kid. Portland shooter - white middle class kid. Aurora shooter - white middle class kid. Columbine shooters - white middle class kids. Should we have the cops roaming through your neighborhood turning over your mattress to prevent the next one of these? Talk about childish solutions.

And pwoens, the story that he didn't use the AR15 was debunked about 2 hours after the massacre.
 

Krusty

Active Member
#41
First vampires. Then ewerewolves. Then vampires and werewolves. Now zombies. Other than watching grade B 1950 horror flicks, where are they getting this stuff?
If you spend any time at a gun range (and I do), you'll see quite the display of zombie targets. My theory is that zombies will never evoke any sort of sympathetic concern (considering they want to eat your BRAINS) and therefore couldn't even trigger a PETA complaint....the perfect target.
 
#42
alot has been brought up about gun violence which no one can deny is increasing. I believe a lot just because increased population. but has anyone brought up the fact of violent video games in young people's finger tips and how that may desensitize them.
 

Jerry Daschofsky

Moderator
Staff member
#43
Ok, here's the deal. I let this go at first. Now, we're going over the gun debate (this was started as a joke, and let it run). Now the drivel has started. The allegations and the typical BS is starting. Some, total BS. So here's the deal. I'm shutting this down now, then deleting. Read this. Because here's the deal. Next Gun thread started is an instant ban. Go play gun debate on the original thread that's like 20+ pages long. I get ONE PM/conversation saying I'm out of line, you'll be parked immediately. GOT IT?!?!?! I'm about done with this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.