mudcat.org: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]


BS: Shooting tragedies and guns

bobad 18 Dec 12 - 09:57 AM
Bee-dubya-ell 18 Dec 12 - 09:48 AM
Bill D 18 Dec 12 - 09:42 AM
John P 18 Dec 12 - 09:40 AM
beardedbruce 18 Dec 12 - 09:36 AM
John P 18 Dec 12 - 09:28 AM
DMcG 18 Dec 12 - 09:05 AM
Sandy Mc Lean 18 Dec 12 - 08:40 AM
kendall 18 Dec 12 - 08:32 AM
DMcG 18 Dec 12 - 08:01 AM
Charmion 18 Dec 12 - 07:56 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 18 Dec 12 - 07:35 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 18 Dec 12 - 07:18 AM
GUEST,Eliza 18 Dec 12 - 07:10 AM
kendall 18 Dec 12 - 06:56 AM
kendall 18 Dec 12 - 06:14 AM
MGM·Lion 18 Dec 12 - 05:47 AM
John MacKenzie 18 Dec 12 - 05:33 AM
Henry Krinkle 18 Dec 12 - 02:58 AM
GUEST,999 18 Dec 12 - 02:16 AM
GUEST,Big Al Whittle 18 Dec 12 - 12:15 AM
Ron Davies 18 Dec 12 - 12:02 AM
Henry Krinkle 17 Dec 12 - 11:18 PM
gnu 17 Dec 12 - 11:01 PM
Bill D 17 Dec 12 - 10:56 PM
olddude 17 Dec 12 - 10:23 PM
olddude 17 Dec 12 - 10:21 PM
Bill D 17 Dec 12 - 10:20 PM
John P 17 Dec 12 - 10:06 PM
GUEST,999 17 Dec 12 - 09:55 PM
Bill D 17 Dec 12 - 09:22 PM
GUEST,999 17 Dec 12 - 09:19 PM
Bill D 17 Dec 12 - 09:01 PM
GUEST,999 17 Dec 12 - 08:31 PM
Henry Krinkle 17 Dec 12 - 08:21 PM
GUEST,gillymor 17 Dec 12 - 08:12 PM
Jack Campin 17 Dec 12 - 08:01 PM
GUEST,999 17 Dec 12 - 08:00 PM
pdq 17 Dec 12 - 07:59 PM
Bill D 17 Dec 12 - 07:58 PM
Bill D 17 Dec 12 - 07:50 PM
Henry Krinkle 17 Dec 12 - 06:40 PM
Greg F. 17 Dec 12 - 06:39 PM
pdq 17 Dec 12 - 06:15 PM
Greg F. 17 Dec 12 - 06:04 PM
pdq 17 Dec 12 - 05:41 PM
Henry Krinkle 17 Dec 12 - 05:32 PM
Bee-dubya-ell 17 Dec 12 - 05:29 PM
Lizzie Cornish 1 17 Dec 12 - 05:29 PM
GUEST,gillymor 17 Dec 12 - 05:29 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: bobad
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 09:57 AM

I would add some restriction on gun advertising to the list of suggestions. Perhaps a total ban or some form of limitation as we have in Canada on tobacco and alcohol. This kind of ad for the Bushmaster, the weapon used in the recent tragedy, is illustrative of the need for some type of controls.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 09:48 AM

U.S Constitution: Article. V. (Bold added)

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

So the Constitution does provide a "bottom up" means of amendment. It's just a matter of getting the legislatures of at least 34 states to say they want to meet somewhere and talk about it. This means of amending the Constitution has never been used.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 09:42 AM

I listed my 'personal' batch of suggestions as a starting point for discussion, knowing full well that enabling many of them thru acts of Congress or in any individual state would be difficult.
Of course there is no individual or office in the US that could wave a magic wand and demand compliance.

I am not sure exactly how much a president could do on his own, and I suspect Obama is now consulting with legal... and political... experts to work out just what he CAN do legally and with political help. I do know that presidents DO have certain powers to issue emergency orders in some circumstances, but I doubt this would help with any long-term solutions in gun controls.

Now... I am glad to see folks weighing in with positive, concrete suggestions... such as test firing all weapons prior to sale and adding their ballistics to a database.
I'd be willing to see a price increase on ammo...etc... also(it hasn't stopped tobacco sales, but it has made some TRY to reduce their habit)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: John P
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 09:40 AM

Olddude, it's your turn. You have several times advocated having more armed people in every crowd. I think your idea is that if someone opens fire, they'd get taken down quicker. I have a very different expectation for that scenario. I'd like you to refute it if you can.

Crazy person with gun pulls it out and starts shooting in a crowded shopping mall. Armed Bystander #1 (AB1) sees it and pulls out his gun to take down the shooter. AB2 sees AB1 with a gun in his hand and tries to take him down. AB3 sees AB2 with a gun in his hand and tries to take him down. AB4 sees a whole bunch of people with guns and tries to take them all down. Pretty soon there's eight or ten people with guns blazing away at each other with hundreds of normal people in the cross fire. I could easily see the body count from "friendly" fire reaching 50 or more. Since they're not members of a militia, our armed "defenders" have no way of knowing which are the good guys and which are the bad. What's your proposal for ensuring that the Armed Bystanders are shooting in the right direction and that they don't hit anyone but the bad guy?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 09:36 AM

Shall we all agree that we should have laws prohibiting private ownership ( except in very controlled cases ) of AUTOMATIC weapons? And the ASSAULT Rifles should be included? And that those under 21 years of age, with a felony conviction, or with a mental condition should be restricted from having guns?











Will that have stopped this massacre?


Since these HAVE BEEN THE LAWS SINCE 1968, I fail to see what anyone here wants BESIDES banning all guns.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: John P
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 09:28 AM

"John P, you called me a moron, that's why I brought up IQs."

Sorry, Kendall, I didn't. You must have me confused with someone else. I have accused you of making knee-jerk responses to a complicated issue. I'm glad to see that you want to get rid of automatic weapons and the influence of the NRA. I couldn't agree more. How do you feel about "shall issue" laws for concealed-carry permits?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 09:05 AM

They would not. They would see it as a threat, another "Foot in the door" thing.


Precisely so, kendall. I'm not intending to tar all gun owner's with this brush, but there seems to be a substantial group whose argument can be summarised thus: It's not a gun issue ... so we won't do anything about that ... it's a mental health issue ... which we won't do anything about either.


Not a very encouraging stance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 08:40 AM

Perhaps pass a law stating that gun ownership requires approval and training by the NRA. Let them charge each gun owner a substantial fee, about double the purchase price of the gun. Then allow individual or class-action lawsuits of negligence against the NRA for any crime using said approved gun in any illegal manner. Once a court of law determines that the gun was used illegally or a felon is convicted using said gun the burden of proof in defense falls on the NRA! This law would apply to the approved gun notwithstanding who uses it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 08:32 AM

They would not. They would see it as a threat, another "Foot in the door" thing.

No president has the power to change the constitution, and he has so many enemies he would be lucky to survive such an attempt.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 08:01 AM

Bill asked for some new ideas. I only read the first 100 or so posts, so maybe this has been said before. Personally, I'd like to get rid of all the guns, but that's not going to happen any time soon. So, let's pay attention to something the gun supporters are saying, take on their 'people kill people' slogan and say maybe they are partially right, how you deal with the mental health issue is part of the problem. So I suggest you double the price of every bullet and gun and pass the additional revenue into a hypothecated budget for a national mental health fund. Oddly enough, I suspect the gun supporters are unlikely to think that's something they could support either.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Charmion
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 07:56 AM

Don, as a non-American who pays attention, I think I can help answer your question.

I'm not sure a national referendum, as such, is technically possible in the U.S. The United States is 50 sovereign states, a federal district and some territories, all flying in a formation that is not necessarily close, guided by the Executive Branch of the federal government and the Supreme Court in compliance with the Constitution. That's why they have an Electoral College; the national popular vote for the Presidency is tallied by state and it is the states' weight in the Electoral College that determines which candidate wins.

Canada is a federation of provinces under a Westminster-system parliament. We could do it -- in fact, we have done three national referenda, the most recent in 1992 over the proposed Charlottetown Accord -- because the federal government is the boss of us all. Australia and New Zealand -- ditto, with minor variations.

I believe the United Kingdom would actually have a hard time doing a binding national referendum. Technically, I think the vote would have to be conducted separately in England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 07:35 AM

Would either of the sensible posters like to answer my question re Obama issuing an executive order for a referendum, not on banning, but on genuinely effective tight control, which would be much more likely to elicit a positive reaction from a majority of voters.

Faced with a positive response, politicians would have to be very sure of themselves to ignore it, while Obama no longer needs to care about votes.

Does he have the authority to do any such thing?

Kendall, or Bill D, any thoughts on this?

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 07:18 AM

""I would create a national database of owners, serial numbers of ALL guns and all those who use weapons in crimes... and perhaps more. This might be the easiest idea to pursue. Perhaps some of it already exists.""

Good idea Bill, and I would add to that compulsory test firing of every weapon sold, with cartridge and slug added to the database.

I imagine the cops would be overjoyed if they had an automatic means to find murderers by forensic checks on a slug.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 07:10 AM

Let us suppose for one moment that it may be possible to reduce and finally ban completely gun ownership by the public in the USA. Would it be enforcable, and if so, how would it be undertaken? Could there be, for example, a longish period of armistice, where folk hand in their weapons voluntarily; closure of all retail units which sell guns; then house searches, penalties and fines; ban on sales of bullets (or whatever one loads these things with); severe and swingeing sentences for shootings; Government campaigns on TV and the Press to win the hearts and minds of the people, and so on. But would the American people ever submit to this? Looking at this list, I can't see it being embraced by them much. In fact, it might provoke riots!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 06:56 AM

As BillD said in his original post,What we need is a grass roots campaign to get rid of all automatic weapons, and every congressman and Senator who is in the pocket of the National rifle assassination.

Does anyone not understand what I'm saying? I'm tired of being misunderstood.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 06:14 AM

Bill D, you are right on with your ideas. Now, get them past congress. That is the REAL problem.

Jack, I quoted some old stats. Do you know the difference between lying and just being mistaken?
A liar is one who says something he knows to be false. I am not a liar! I admitted being mistaken.
By the way, I don't really expect an apology,pedants never apologize, they don't have to because they are never wrong.

John P, you called me a moron, that's why I brought up IQs.

Part of being a liberal is the willingness to allow others to have a different opinion. I believe I do that as a matter of course.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 05:47 AM

SEMANTICS:

Incidentally, the word 'infringed' appears to be used in the 2nd Amendment in an odd, perhaps obsolete, sense. What, precisely, do all you upholders of the amendment take it to mean? The intended implication would appear to be that the right should not be disregarded, or contradicted, or set at nought; but in what sense does 'infringe' reference any such actions?

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 05:33 AM

Like clip, like brain, Hen.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 02:58 AM

I agree with everyone who disagrees with how the media presents guns.
I've been in the military. I had a collection I sold off.
A gun should either be locked away or on a person's person.
Not left in a car or in a closet.
Just like in the military.
I enjoyed my AK47 and Ruger Mini 17.
Fun to empty out a clip.
=(:-( ))


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 02:16 AM

"If you're not from the U.S., worry about things in your own backyard."

The US is my backyard, Henry. Go fuck yourself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 12:15 AM

Trouble is Henry, You export your back yard to us.

Our kids pick up on your gangsta rap , wargame jargon, crime stories...

The USA is the dominant culture in the world, and as such it has responsibilities beyond its shores.

Lets be honest. Maybe you DO need to shrug and say, we love our freedoms and the price of it apparently is that now and then something terrible like this happens.

We ain't perfect. Sorry about that.

No more of this bursting into tears and hypocrisy. Its going to happen again in the new year and every year after that. It must be borne.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 12:02 AM

The ignorance of some Mudcatters, like most Americans, about their own history, about the 2nd Amendment, and even about grammar, is discouraging.

First let's have the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment:


"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It shows, among other things, ignorance of grammar, to allege that belonging to a militia was not intended by the 2nd Amendment to be a requirement for bearing arms.


The obvious meaing of the Amendment is that "Since a well-regulated militia is essential to defend the US, there is to be no restriction on bearing arms."   That is; we need freedom to bear arms in order to serve in the militia which is to defend the US.

Yet again, at the time of the Bill of Rights there was a strong fear of a standing army;   the militia was to substitute. If you have only a citizen army a general is unlikely to be able to make himself dictator.

But we do need an armed force, ran the reasoning, in order to defend against British attempts, probably from Canada, to reverse the Revolution, and to defend our homes against Indian attacks--and probably, in the South, against slave uprisings.


So every able-bodied (white) man is to be armed and to be ready to be part of a militia at any time.    In fact, there is to be training for these men ("well-regulated")---which turned out to be a pathetic joke, as I've already noted in the thread.


Relying on a militia for national defense quickly proved to be a disaster--people like Washington already knew this--but it took quite a while for a standing army to be accepted.

However, at this point, unless you are still afraid of British invasion, Indian attacks. slave uprisings or a standing army, therefore, the 2nd Amendment has lost all usefulness.    It is in fact at this point a curse---since gun rights groups can and do always wrap themselves in the Constitution--- a tactic which cannot be used anywhere outside the US to turn back gun control efforts.

But knowing about the history is the first step to dealing with the 2nd Amendment and its defenders.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 11:18 PM

Leave the guns alone. Combat mental illness.
If you're not from the U.S., worry about things in your own backyard.
=(:-( ))


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: gnu
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 11:01 PM

It's me... I'm back because this is just sOOOO inane in many ways but very important (sue me). Sooooo, are youse keen to write Amendment 2a? I posted my proposal. Post yours. What would you write in the next amendment?

WE, the peeps, are pissed and we... ???

Is that an odd request?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 10:56 PM

You CAN ban... or severely limit... commercially mass-produced ammo. And for many types, VERY few will be able to melt enuf lead and obtain the powder necessary to amass the huge stock some of these nuts collect.

10) (almost forgot) restrict easy access to casings and black powder


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: olddude
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 10:23 PM

ya can't ban bullets, guys like me make our own, melt down tire lead and reload or swag our own jacketed bullets. Guys who shoot a lot and I do, reload their own. even if you ban that, most people have the equipment and primers and power to last the next 20 years .. that won't work.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: olddude
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 10:21 PM

damn near everything you said Bill is already on the books. If you try to buy a weapon and you are a convicted felon, yup the licensed dealer is required to report it ... other than the assault ban which we did have a few years ago there is little new in your suggestion. Why doesn't it work, well private sales are not required to have a BG check and the gun show loophole makes that a reality. Hence it is all negated. Like I said plug the hole in the dam and then the 27,000 laws will make sense that we already have


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 10:20 PM

Perhaps Fox is consulting the NRA about what to say... he said cynically.

------------------------------

Now, let me clarify what my draconian suggestions would NOT include.

If you were a farmer in Kansas who kept a .22 rifle to shoot vermin near your barn, you would likely have NO trouble getting your permit okayed.

If you were a rancher in Wyoming who sometimes needed and even more powerful rifle to deal with predators... it would probably be routine for YOU to submit forms and be approved.

If you live in the West Virginia mountains (as a friend on mine does)and often supplement your diet with venison, of course you may have the *necessary* firearms..(DO buy the permits)

If you collect antique firearms and have relevant permits... no problem.

If you are a licensed private investigator who sometimes encounters dangerous situations, and are sometimes threatened in the line of your work, it is 'likely' that you can keep your sidearms... if you have complied with all relevant laws.

A good proportion of hunters... who do not claim the need to 'hunt' with semi-auto AR-15s and such... are likely to be allowed to continue hunting... birds, deer, etc.... just refer to the rules 1-9.

I am NOT....yet... suggesting we deny those uses. I only assert that the definitions of 'need' as to firearms needs to be tightened a lot.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: John P
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 10:06 PM

Kendal says, "John P my IQ is 140. whats yours?"

I don't know. I don't think it's pertinent to this discussion. Why do you? Is there any chance you could actually respond to the things I said, rather than trying to say you're smarter than me? When I posted a list of laws I would like to see, none of which exist yet, your response was to say they already exist. What's IQ got to do with it?

Everything I've seen you write previous to this discussion has made me think you're an intelligent and honorable person. Can you understand how frustrating it is to try to have a rational discussion on a topic, only to have you respond with really old and tired bumper-sticker slogans? "There's plenty of laws on the books, but criminals ignore them" and "guns don't kill people, people kill people". I believe you are really smart, but you don't seem to be bringing your brains to this discussion.

How about if you go back and read what I really said, and then really respond to it? Perhaps we could take my points one at a time. Let's start with the fact that a gun in the home is four times more likely to be used on a friend or family member than on an armed intruder. What do you think we should do about that?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 09:55 PM

Well, surprise, surprise. FOX news has said its broadcasters/reporters will NOT discuss gun control in the wake of the Newtown murders. Another heroic news organization at work.

So, the first amendment ain't but the second amendment is? Gotta love them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 09:22 PM

The last time there was BIG outcry... after the shooting of Gabby Giffords, the NRA did just that... refused to comment and answer questions while everyone bewailed the poor victims.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 09:19 PM

Yeah. Real stalwart defenders of America's freedoms.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 09:01 PM

The NRA is not stupid... they know when to lay low & hope things settle down.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 08:31 PM

Seems the NRA has been unavailable for comment. Likewise with Republican supporters of the NRA. Wonder why that is?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 08:21 PM

And we should use the guillotine on all firearms offenders.
=(:-( o)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 08:12 PM

Something important for your list, Bill:
Limit the amount of ammunition one can buy and legally posess.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Jack Campin
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 08:01 PM

[Kendall]
Jack, I'm still waiting for that apology.

What fucking apology? You knowingly repeated a bunch tired and often-refuted NRA propaganda you had been shown to be bollocks a couple of hours before, making no effort whatever to check any of it.

You aren't just a liar, you have to rehash other people's lies.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 08:00 PM

"Should people from other countries mind their own business?"

On an international forum? Dream on.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 07:59 PM

Henry,

The .223 (or 5.56 mm) is legal in my state but it is not allowed for deer hunting in some states.

If you are a good shot or get close enough, almost any gun will take down a deer.

My grandfather used a 25-20 made in about 1895, but that was a long time ago.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 07:58 PM

I will add:
8)Any gun store which needs to deny a sale for any reason, must REPORT the attempted buy to authorities.

9)I would create a national database of owners, serial numbers of ALL guns and all those who use weapons in crimes... and perhaps more. This might be the easiest idea to pursue. Perhaps some of it already exists.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 07:50 PM

Mister PDQ... I WILL "drag you into" the ongoing debate...by name.. when it is you who is carrying the banner for just accepting the status quo and letting such crucial issues be decided and influenced by outmoded concepts.
If you wish to just read from the sidelines, now that you have "said all that needed to be said", quit tossing in your 2 cents worth!

-----------------

Olddude said: "Let responsible well trained people have their guns but come up with a way of keeping them out of the hands of criminals and unstable people. "

You miss the point that almost anyone can be trained and **considered** responsible until they prove otherwise. Even those who cannot be, or are deranged, or criminals can steal weapons! This boy WAS refused the purchase of a rifle shortly before the shootings. "Oh, never mind, I know where my survivalist mother keeps hers!"

I of course, like the idea of closing the loopholes of gun shows and internet sales. But, Dan... what will you do about millions of assault weapons and handguns with large magazines already out there... many already IN the hands of criminals and the unstable!

I'm sorry, but what I see in the idea "...Let responsible well trained people have their guns but ..." is.. "Don't take MINE!".. and everyone who HAS those weapons will define themselves as 'responsible' and resist any changes.

If ONLY proven responsible folk who actually NEEDED them had guns, I would shrug... but reality is otherwise.... and even IF 75% of everyone agreed with ME, it would be very hard to implement any changes!

So... what are MY ideas? (since I am so loud about things?)

1) I would immediately reinstate the ban on sales and imports of assault weapons
2) I would require ALL privately owned such weapons to be turned in to National Guard armories, with a certain buy-back % of their value.. costly, but worth it) (I am not sure what I would recommend be done with the weapons... but armories can be breached.)
3) I would ban the sale of many types of ammunition... you can guess which types.
4) EVERY known possessor of ANY gun permit would be required to RE-register and be reevaluated... and like drivers, be re-checked every few years. ANY misstatement about number & types of weapons owned would be grounds for revocation of their permits and/or jail time!
5) ANYONE caught using an unregistered firearm, whether in a crime or not, would receive a LARGE fine and some jail time.
6) ANYONE who qualified to have a permit for certain firearms would be subject to random inspections to prove that they had current possession and proper safeguards.
7) I would promote and lobby ALL members of Congress to revisit the 2nd amendment and TRY to pass a reasonable version that addresses the stuff that the Founders could not have imagined.

......now, that's a set of ideas... which I shall send to my congressman & senators. Anyone feel like piggybacking on my ideas to YOUR representatives? I won't complain a bit!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 06:40 PM

The .223 is a very accurate round. At a long distance.
I'd use one to hunt deer. I had a Ruger Mini 14.
A good gun.
=(:-( ))


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 06:39 PM

They are not always intended to punish the bad guy.

However, thay should also "punish the bad guy" in addition to their educational function, if such there is.

Try again.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 06:15 PM

"Of course there are plenty of gun owners who will contend that since an AK-47 can be used for hunting, they should have a right to own them. Well, if the government has a right to say you can't hunt moose with a .22 because you're more likely to wound the animal than kill it, it should have the right to say you can't have that AK because you're more likely to use it to shoot your neighbor than a deer." ~ Bee-dubya-ell

Quite often, laws, rules and regulations are intended to educate people as to the right thing to do.

They are not always intended to punish the bad guy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 06:04 PM

Sorry, PeeDee, but the .223 is a standard military round, has a jacketed bullet, and is considerably more powerful than a standard .22 long rifle cartridge. They are nothing alike.

You're just displaying your ignorance, once again.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:41 PM

The diameter of the slug fired from the Bushmaster was .223 inches, the slug fired from a 22 rifle is .220 (as far as I can tell) so there is very little diference.

Neither should be used in hunting deer, boar, similar large game animals.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:32 PM

There you go again, Lizzie.
The voice of sensibility.
=(:-( ))


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:29 PM

It's a fundamental tenet of US law that a right, once extended, can only be rescinded or limited if its free exercise denies others the free expression of a more fundamental right. Though the practice of chattel slavery was perfectly legal when the Constitution was framed, it was later determined that the right to own slaves was trumped by those slaves' more fundamental right of freedom.

Does the right to bear arms conflict with a more fundamental right? It depends on what arms we're talking about.

People have a right to feed themselves and to feel safe in their homes. For many, whether you or I agree or not, owning a gun for purposes of hunting food and personal protection is part and parcel of securing the fundamental right of life itself.

On the other hand, owning a firearm which is not likely to be used in securing a fundamental right cannot be considered a fundamental right itself. Most semi-automatic rifles in private ownership are used for non-hunting recreational purposes. Last time I checked, recreation is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution or by subsequent legislation. Life is. When the two come into conflict, even though it's a rare occurrence, Bubba's right to shoot an AK-47 at tree stumps gets trumped by his fellow citizens' right to life.

Of course there are plenty of gun owners who will contend that since an AK-47 can be used for hunting, they should have a right to own them. Well, if the government has a right to say you can't hunt moose with a .22 because you're more likely to wound the animal than kill it, it should have the right to say you can't have that AK because you're more likely to use it to shoot your neighbor than a deer.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:29 PM

"Compassion is a far more powerful weapon than violence. Let us all become weapons of mass compassion" — Carlos Santana


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:29 PM

Hmm, dateline on that Columbia Law School article is from almost 2 1/2 years ago. I wonder how people would respond today? No doubt there will be plenty of polling done and it'll be interesting to see where sentiments lie.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 12 April 2:13 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.