Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 15:28:32 GMT -5
Where is the NRA? They care about the gun manufactures not the people who are buying these guns. There was a time when they took pride in providing gun training, now they suck the gun lobbyists dicks for money.
|
|
|
|
Post by CTJetsFanII on Feb 5, 2015 9:05:50 GMT -5
In my state, you need to take and pass a NRA safety course to apply for a permit which is now required to purchase any firearm. That course is a combination of classroom and hands on. You are taught the laws and safety. There's nothing the NRA can do to prevent stupid just like the DMV can't do anything about someone who took driver's ed, passed the test, got a license and then does something stupid. You can't legislate personal responsibility. If people screw up, they need to pay.
|
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Feb 5, 2015 9:42:36 GMT -5
In my state, you need to take and pass a NRA safety course to apply for a permit which is now required to purchase any firearm. That course is a combination of classroom and hands on. You are taught the laws and safety. There's nothing the NRA can do to prevent stupid just like the DMV can't do anything about someone who took driver's ed, passed the test, got a license and then does something stupid. You can't legislate personal responsibility. If people screw up, they need to pay. As someone who's probably middle of the road on the issue - not a gun owner at the moment but fully supporting the right to own guns - and would like to see a compromise reached, I think the idea of a mandatory safety class has merit. And as you mentioned, we have to realize that some people will take the class, pass the checks, and still be irresponsible. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2015 10:53:54 GMT -5
In my state, you need to take and pass a NRA safety course to apply for a permit which is now required to purchase any firearm. That course is a combination of classroom and hands on. You are taught the laws and safety. There's nothing the NRA can do to prevent stupid just like the DMV can't do anything about someone who took driver's ed, passed the test, got a license and then does something stupid. You can't legislate personal responsibility. If people screw up, they need to pay. That's a great step and is reasonable as well. If you make gun ownership a serious matter hopefully idiots will think twice before they purchase a gun. |
|
|
|
Post by CTJetsFanII on Feb 5, 2015 12:06:23 GMT -5
In my state, you need to take and pass a NRA safety course to apply for a permit which is now required to purchase any firearm. That course is a combination of classroom and hands on. You are taught the laws and safety. There's nothing the NRA can do to prevent stupid just like the DMV can't do anything about someone who took driver's ed, passed the test, got a license and then does something stupid. You can't legislate personal responsibility. If people screw up, they need to pay. As someone who's probably middle of the road on the issue - not a gun owner at the moment but fully supporting the right to own guns - and would like to see a compromise reached, I think the idea of a mandatory safety class has merit. And as you mentioned, we have to realize that some people will take the class, pass the checks, and still be irresponsible. I know there are people out there that disagree with this. They believe that the 2nd Amendment gives you the right regardless and there should be no classes, permits or background checks. That's a whole other conversation. Where I get defensive is when a few people screw up or do something insane that tragically leads to a loss of life, that a segment of the public outcries that EVERYONE'S rights should be impacted and restricted. That's the same as someone getting drunk and accidentally killing someone and all of the sudden liquor consumption is restricted by state/federal law. This country is based on certain freedoms. At the end of the day, you can create laws but you can't prevent people from being irresponsible/crazy/stupid and breaking them. Instead of looking for more government restriction, try enforcing the laws on the books to their maximum and hope that is a deterrent. No law is going to prevent those types of actions, but you can hope that some will think twice and be more responsible. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2015 12:26:34 GMT -5
As someone who's probably middle of the road on the issue - not a gun owner at the moment but fully supporting the right to own guns - and would like to see a compromise reached, I think the idea of a mandatory safety class has merit. And as you mentioned, we have to realize that some people will take the class, pass the checks, and still be irresponsible. I know there are people out there that disagree with this. They believe that the 2nd Amendment gives you the right regardless and there should be no classes, permits or background checks. That's a whole other conversation. Where I get defensive is when a few people screw up or do something insane that tragically leads to a loss of life, that a segment of the public outcries that EVERYONE'S rights should be impacted and restricted. That's the same as someone getting drunk and accidentally killing someone and all of the sudden liquor consumption is restricted by state/federal law. This country is based on certain freedoms. At the end of the day, you can create laws but you can't prevent people from being irresponsible/crazy/stupid and breaking them. Instead of looking for more government restriction, try enforcing the laws on the books to their maximum and hope that is a deterrent. No law is going to prevent those types of actions, but you can hope that some will think twice and be more responsible. No laws will prevent anything bad happening, every state's gun laws need to be more uniform with one another. Sandy Hook made that sensible law possible, guns are different I can recall the last time a drunk driver killed numerous children sitting in their classroom. |
|
|
|
Post by CTJetsFanII on Feb 5, 2015 13:54:30 GMT -5
I know there are people out there that disagree with this. They believe that the 2nd Amendment gives you the right regardless and there should be no classes, permits or background checks. That's a whole other conversation. Where I get defensive is when a few people screw up or do something insane that tragically leads to a loss of life, that a segment of the public outcries that EVERYONE'S rights should be impacted and restricted. That's the same as someone getting drunk and accidentally killing someone and all of the sudden liquor consumption is restricted by state/federal law. This country is based on certain freedoms. At the end of the day, you can create laws but you can't prevent people from being irresponsible/crazy/stupid and breaking them. Instead of looking for more government restriction, try enforcing the laws on the books to their maximum and hope that is a deterrent. No law is going to prevent those types of actions, but you can hope that some will think twice and be more responsible. No laws will prevent anything bad happening, every state's gun laws need to be more uniform with one another. Sandy Hook made that sensible law possible, guns are different I can recall the last time a drunk driver killed numerous children sitting in their classroom. I respect your opinion and right to express it but disagree with it. Adam Lanza killed those children, not the gun. Mrs. Lanza (his mother) would be just as guilty (were she alive) because she allowed her son, despite his mental illness, to have easy access to firearms. Had she used common sense and those weapons had been secured correctly AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, this would never have happened. Not to say Adam may not have gone to the school with knives, swords or tried to make bombs from the internet if he really wanted to hurt children. Does anyone in their right mind believe Adam Lanza should have had access to firearms? Apparently his mother was ok with it. Add to that fact that Adam went to a place where he knew no one would be armed and could defend themselves. Oh, that's right. CT law says no firearms on any school property in the state unless you are law enforcement. How well did that law work out to protect people? I'm sorry, but people protect themselves and others. Not a sign on the door or a law passed by a political party that someone chooses to ignore. I laugh when I go to a business or establishment that has a "No Firearms Allowed" sign on it. I choose to either not enter that establishment or come back another time when not in possession. Regardless, some psycho sure as hell will ignore it and, god forbid, something happens there people would've wished that there was a good person in there that was legally armed and willing to do something to help instead of someone calling 911 and letting several minutes go by before law enforcement arrives. Again, I respect your opinion and right to have one. I disagree with it and have stated why. We'll just agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Feb 5, 2015 15:45:24 GMT -5
No laws will prevent anything bad happening, every state's gun laws need to be more uniform with one another. Sandy Hook made that sensible law possible, guns are different I can recall the last time a drunk driver killed numerous children sitting in their classroom. I respect your opinion and right to express it but disagree with it. Adam Lanza killed those children, not the gun. Mrs. Lanza (his mother) would be just as guilty (were she alive) because she allowed her son, despite his mental illness, to have easy access to firearms. Had she used common sense and those weapons had been secured correctly AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, this would never have happened. Not to say Adam may not have gone to the school with knives, swords or tried to make bombs from the internet if he really wanted to hurt children. Does anyone in their right mind believe Adam Lanza should have had access to firearms? Apparently his mother was ok with it. Add to that fact that Adam went to a place where he knew no one would be armed and could defend themselves. Oh, that's right. CT law says no firearms on any school property in the state unless you are law enforcement. How well did that law work out to protect people? I'm sorry, but people protect themselves and others. Not a sign on the door or a law passed by a political party that someone chooses to ignore. I laugh when I go to a business or establishment that has a "No Firearms Allowed" sign on it. I choose to either not enter that establishment or come back another time when not in possession. Regardless, some psycho sure as hell will ignore it and, god forbid, something happens there people would've wished that there was a good person in there that was legally armed and willing to do something to help instead of someone calling 911 and letting several minutes go by before law enforcement arrives. Again, I respect your opinion and right to have one. I disagree with it and have stated why. We'll just agree to disagree. You are right of course, you cant outlaw stupid or evil. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2015 22:43:06 GMT -5
No laws will prevent anything bad happening, every state's gun laws need to be more uniform with one another. Sandy Hook made that sensible law possible, guns are different I can recall the last time a drunk driver killed numerous children sitting in their classroom. I respect your opinion and right to express it but disagree with it. Adam Lanza killed those children, not the gun. Mrs. Lanza (his mother) would be just as guilty (were she alive) because she allowed her son, despite his mental illness, to have easy access to firearms. Had she used common sense and those weapons had been secured correctly AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, this would never have happened. Not to say Adam may not have gone to the school with knives, swords or tried to make bombs from the internet if he really wanted to hurt children. Does anyone in their right mind believe Adam Lanza should have had access to firearms? Apparently his mother was ok with it. Add to that fact that Adam went to a place where he knew no one would be armed and could defend themselves. Oh, that's right. CT law says no firearms on any school property in the state unless you are law enforcement. How well did that law work out to protect people? I'm sorry, but people protect themselves and others. Not a sign on the door or a law passed by a political party that someone chooses to ignore. I laugh when I go to a business or establishment that has a "No Firearms Allowed" sign on it. I choose to either not enter that establishment or come back another time when not in possession. Regardless, some psycho sure as hell will ignore it and, god forbid, something happens there people would've wished that there was a good person in there that was legally armed and willing to do something to help instead of someone calling 911 and letting several minutes go by before law enforcement arrives. Again, I respect your opinion and right to have one. I disagree with it and have stated why. We'll just agree to disagree. If Lanza had a knife or a bomb or a handgun he would not of been capable of killing all the people as quickly as he did, spare me the no guns in school BS, Columbine had an armed police officer if I remember correctly. Access to these guns iare way too easy. Lanza would of had to reload at least 2 times just to gain enter dance to the school. You think if he ordered a bomb online red flags would of went off? Mommy buying a aresenal of weapons because it's her right, no one thought a minute because God a forbid the 2nd amendment is violated, firget the well regulated militia part that simply should and has been ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by CTJetsFanII on Feb 6, 2015 8:44:45 GMT -5
I respect your opinion and right to express it but disagree with it. Adam Lanza killed those children, not the gun. Mrs. Lanza (his mother) would be just as guilty (were she alive) because she allowed her son, despite his mental illness, to have easy access to firearms. Had she used common sense and those weapons had been secured correctly AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, this would never have happened. Not to say Adam may not have gone to the school with knives, swords or tried to make bombs from the internet if he really wanted to hurt children. Does anyone in their right mind believe Adam Lanza should have had access to firearms? Apparently his mother was ok with it. Add to that fact that Adam went to a place where he knew no one would be armed and could defend themselves. Oh, that's right. CT law says no firearms on any school property in the state unless you are law enforcement. How well did that law work out to protect people? I'm sorry, but people protect themselves and others. Not a sign on the door or a law passed by a political party that someone chooses to ignore. I laugh when I go to a business or establishment that has a "No Firearms Allowed" sign on it. I choose to either not enter that establishment or come back another time when not in possession. Regardless, some psycho sure as hell will ignore it and, god forbid, something happens there people would've wished that there was a good person in there that was legally armed and willing to do something to help instead of someone calling 911 and letting several minutes go by before law enforcement arrives. Again, I respect your opinion and right to have one. I disagree with it and have stated why. We'll just agree to disagree. If Lanza had a knife or a bomb or a handgun he would not of been capable of killing all the people as quickly as he did, spare me the no guns in school BS, Columbine had an armed police officer if I remember correctly. Access to these guns iare way too easy. Lanza would of had to reload at least 2 times just to gain enter dance to the school. You think if he ordered a bomb online red flags would of went off? Mommy buying a aresenal of weapons because it's her right, no one thought a minute because God a forbid the 2nd amendment is violated, firget the well regulated militia part that simply should and has been ignored. Like I said, you have your views and I have mine. We'll agree to disagree. "Mommy" did have a right to buy whatever she wanted, but she had an obligation to society and the law to keep whatever she bought properly secured so someone who was crazy (her son) couldn't have access. She failed at that, broke the law, paid with life and so did almost 30 other people. Again, the tragedy was preventable had she used common sense. Regardless, law abiding normal people should not have to pay for her mistakes. Reload 2 times? I'm not sure where you are getting "reload at least 2 times just to gain entrance". Read the report (I did). It was a lot easier than that. Most that own a firearm can reload twice in less than 20 seconds (combined). I didn't say "buy a bomb". You can buy the materials to make one (with a little help from the internet) if that's your objective that would not send up any flags. Sad but true but it's been done. I do suggest that you check your history and better understand why we have the 2nd Amendment. It's not just about a "well regulated militia". |
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Feb 6, 2015 10:00:37 GMT -5
Who orders a bomb online? I think CTs point was you can easily find plans for a homemade bomb on the internet and elsewhere. Someone could walk into any home and garden store and get everything they need. I guarantee law enforcement wouldn't have a clue until after the fact. You don't think a well placed backpack or two at dismissal time wouldn't have taken out a whole mess of kids? Folks in Boston may disagree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2015 14:19:37 GMT -5
Who orders a bomb online? I think CTs point was you can easily find plans for a homemade bomb on the internet and elsewhere. Someone could walk into any home and garden store and get everything they need. I guarantee law enforcement wouldn't have a clue until after the fact. You don't think a well placed backpack or two at dismissal time wouldn't have taken out a whole mess of kids? Folks in Boston may disagree. Bomb making material, yes, bought "on the line". By your logic there should be roadside bombs all over the U.S. just waiting to be detonated, it's easy and undetectable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2015 14:44:42 GMT -5
If Lanza had a knife or a bomb or a handgun he would not of been capable of killing all the people as quickly as he did, spare me the no guns in school BS, Columbine had an armed police officer if I remember correctly. Access to these guns iare way too easy. Lanza would of had to reload at least 2 times just to gain enter dance to the school. You think if he ordered a bomb online red flags would of went off? Mommy buying a aresenal of weapons because it's her right, no one thought a minute because God a forbid the 2nd amendment is violated, firget the well regulated militia part that simply should and has been ignored. Like I said, you have your views and I have mine. We'll agree to disagree. "Mommy" did have a right to buy whatever she wanted, but she had an obligation to society and the law to keep whatever she bought properly secured so someone who was crazy (her son) couldn't have access. She failed at that, broke the law, paid with life and so did almost 30 other people. Again, the tragedy was preventable had she used common sense. Regardless, law abiding normal people should not have to pay for her mistakes. Reload 2 times? I'm not sure where you are getting "reload at least 2 times just to gain entrance". Read the report (I did). It was a lot easier than that. Most that own a firearm can reload twice in less than 20 seconds (combined). I didn't say "buy a bomb". You can buy the materials to make one (with a little help from the internet) if that's your objective that would not send up any flags. Sad but true but it's been done. I do suggest that you check your history and better understand why we have the 2nd Amendment. It's not just about a "well regulated militia". Lanza shot 155 rounds in less than 5 minutes. Possible with a handgun? |
|
|
|
Post by CTJetsFanII on Feb 6, 2015 15:36:31 GMT -5
Like I said, you have your views and I have mine. We'll agree to disagree. "Mommy" did have a right to buy whatever she wanted, but she had an obligation to society and the law to keep whatever she bought properly secured so someone who was crazy (her son) couldn't have access. She failed at that, broke the law, paid with life and so did almost 30 other people. Again, the tragedy was preventable had she used common sense. Regardless, law abiding normal people should not have to pay for her mistakes. Reload 2 times? I'm not sure where you are getting "reload at least 2 times just to gain entrance". Read the report (I did). It was a lot easier than that. Most that own a firearm can reload twice in less than 20 seconds (combined). I didn't say "buy a bomb". You can buy the materials to make one (with a little help from the internet) if that's your objective that would not send up any flags. Sad but true but it's been done. I do suggest that you check your history and better understand why we have the 2nd Amendment. It's not just about a "well regulated militia". Lanza shot 155 rounds in less than 5 minutes. Possible with a handgun? I'm assuming you don't have much experience with firearms. Yes, with a semi-auto pistol and carrying that amount of magazines (10 15 round magazines pre-loaded) 150 rounds in 5 minutes can be done without much difficulty. If you're point is is it easier with a rifle loaded with 20 or 30 round magazines, of course it is. I'm not going to deny that a firearm in the hands of someone who is sick/crazy/violent isn't a "force multiplier". But at the same time, a firearm in the hand of someone (ex. a small woman) who is about to get mugged by a bigger (or multiple) assailants is an "equalizer". And guess what, quite often just the presence of a firearm is enough of a deterrent to prevent a crime. Unfortunately, that often doesn't get reported and doesn't make the statistics, but if it does, the media doesn't give it the same treatment as a story where the crime was committed with a firearm. The Virginia Tech shooting was done with a handgun: www.khq.com/story/6382303/weapons-used-in-va-tech-shooting |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 9:21:41 GMT -5
Lanza shot 155 rounds in less than 5 minutes. Possible with a handgun? I'm assuming you don't have much experience with firearms. Yes, with a semi-auto pistol and carrying that amount of magazines (10 15 round magazines pre-loaded) 150 rounds in 5 minutes can be done without much difficulty. If you're point is is it easier with a rifle loaded with 20 or 30 round magazines, of course it is. I'm not going to deny that a firearm in the hands of someone who is sick/crazy/violent isn't a "force multiplier". But at the same time, a firearm in the hand of someone (ex. a small woman) who is about to get mugged by a bigger (or multiple) assailants is an "equalizer". And guess what, quite often just the presence of a firearm is enough of a deterrent to prevent a crime. Unfortunately, that often doesn't get reported and doesn't make the statistics, but if it does, the media doesn't give it the same treatment as a story where the crime was committed with a firearm. The Virginia Tech shooting was done with a handgun: www.khq.com/story/6382303/weapons-used-in-va-tech-shootingIt took Cho 9 minutes to fire 170 rounds and he was well planned compared to Lanza. I guess the shooter who killed 1 Pa state Trooper and almost killed another at their state police barracks didn't care much about the guns on location? Or the two on duty MYPD officers who were killed at month? There are are way too many azzzholes who have access to guns in this country. I understand the history of the ENTIRE 2nd amendment. |
|
