# Its Assult Weapon time again....yea!!!!!



## Davey Jones (Nov 2, 2013)

Another one using the assault weapon,this time at LAX but lets not forget Newtown, Aurora, and Tucson and others.
When are we ever going to learn to ban those military-style assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines?
Can't wait for the NRA to explain this one.


----------



## Old Hipster (Nov 2, 2013)

Well I wouldn't be without mine, I head up our Neighborhood Watch Committee, here is a recent photo of me getting ready to make my rounds.


----------



## rkunsaw (Nov 2, 2013)

I am the NRA Davey. Once again it wasn't an assault weapon. Once again it was a mental case doing the shooting. Once again the media will give him much, much more than his 15 minutes of fame so other nut cases will be encouraged to follow suit. 

And here you are jumping for joy for any excuse to ban guns.


----------



## Anne (Nov 2, 2013)

Anyone in that frame of mind will always be able to get a weapon - legal or otherwise.   I don't even like guns, but I wouldn't want to live in a society where they were all banned; which is what the long-term plans are, I'm sure.

The 'informative' media doesn't spend much time telling us about the homeowners who were able to protect themselves and their families because they had a weapon.


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 2, 2013)

This latest gunman wasn't stopped by any armed civilians. 

If that wasn't an assault rifle, what was it?
Whatever it was, it was designed to kill people, not moose.


----------



## Davey Jones (Nov 2, 2013)

rkunsaw said:


> I am the NRA Davey. Once again it wasn't an assault weapon. Once again it was a mental case doing the shooting. Once again the media will give him much, much more than his 15 minutes of fame so other nut cases will be encouraged to follow suit.
> 
> And here you are jumping for joy for any excuse to ban guns.





You wanna tell us where all these"nutcases"get their assult weapons?


----------



## SifuPhil (Nov 2, 2013)

The rifle was supposedly an AR-15 assault "style" rifle - a photo of it laying on the terminal floor is in the media. You can easily modify a "legal" AR-15 into something that is full-auto, although that does not appear to have been the case here. NJ bans all AR-15s, but it would be a simple matter to purchase one in a legal state and then carry it into your own location. 

The laws concerning AR-15s are a mess. Some states allow them, some ban them outright, others have restrictions. The lower receiver is considered the "firearm", so the other parts - upper receiver, barrel, grips - seem to be changeable in many locations. 

Colt AR-15s are specifically banned in California, so either he was illegally carrying it or it was an AR-15 of non-Colt manufacture. That's how screwy the laws are.


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 2, 2013)

You need national gun laws. States' rights shouldn't trump the rights of citizens to safer public places.


----------



## Steve (Nov 3, 2013)

Although it isn't my country, we in Canada are in a similar situation concerning guns..

My opinion (and it is only my opinion) is that:

*GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE
PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE

DO CARS MAKE PEOPLE DRIVE DRUNK
DO PENCILS MISSPELL*


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 3, 2013)

So a good idea might be to keep guns away from people who don't really need one ?


----------



## Jackie22 (Nov 3, 2013)

*
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Where could he have possibly heard such nonsense..[/FONT]**[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif].....[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]LAX suspect had 'patriot' movement propaganda on him, expert says [/FONT]

By Pete Williams, Andrew Blankstein and Daniel Arkin, NBC News 

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...t-movement-propaganda-on-him-expert-says?lite 

"SNIP................................. 


Clues on a possible motive for an armed assault at Los Angeles International Airport emerged Saturday, with reports indicating the suspect was carrying a “manifesto” associated with the antigovernment “patriot” movement and a note saying he intended to murder at least one Transportation Security Administration officer. 

The Associated Press, quoting a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation, reported that suspect Paul Anthony Ciancia, 23, said in the note found in the duffel bag he carried into the airport on Friday that he wasn’t targeting a specific TSA employee. 

“Black, white, yellow, brown, I don’t discriminate,” the note read, according to a paraphrase by the law enforcement official, who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity. *


----------



## Old Hipster (Nov 3, 2013)

Warrigal said:


> So a good idea might be to keep guns away from people who don't really need one ?


Oh I needed a good laugh this morning. It seems so simple doesn't it!?!

Anybody can get a gun anytime they want, nuts or not. Because people always know people they can go to to get one. And we have guns show and sales that are HUGE Flea Market type deals, but it is all guns and ammo. And yes there is a few days wait while you are being checked out, but if you are a felon or completely nuts, then you just have somebody else get the gun and they sell it to you illegally.

And then lots of people inherit their guns, we have been packing guns ever since we got here and never put them down.

I have no idea what the answer is. How could they ever get all of our guns, "they" would have to drive around in big trucks and knock on every door and demand your guns. 
People will never willingly give up guns or turn their guns in for money. The gun buy backs they do sometimes in conjunction with law enforcement, about all they do collect are broken rusty guns that you can't shoot anyway.
 Do they think some gang banger is going to turn in his automatic weapon for a few bucks because it is the right thing to do. 

If we want to pack a concealed weapon, we have to have a Gun Permit, but we can have any number of unregistered/unlicensed guns, the number of these must be HUGE. Are we suppose to have them, no problem, in most states there is no requirement or procedure to register a gun.

When you go to get a concealed weapons permit, they don't care or even ask you about any gun or guns you need it for.

We really are gun crazy in the good 'ole U.S. of A. I am sure the amount of law abiding citizens who own and even carry a weapon is staggering. It is a number that would be impossible to know either, because a lot of folks are pretty quiet about what they have.

And because we all know the criminals and nutters are armed to the gills, some of the rest of us feel it is absolutely necessary to be able to defend ourselves if need be. But I have never felt the need to have my own assault rifle. If you are a good shot, you only need one bullet. 

http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/12/14/the-united-states-of-firearms-americas-love-of-the-gun/


----------



## rkunsaw (Nov 3, 2013)

Warrigal said:


> This latest gunman wasn't stopped by any armed civilians.
> 
> If that wasn't an assault rifle, what was it?
> Whatever it was, it was designed to kill people, not moose.



The latest gunman wasn't stopped by armed civilians because he was in an area where it is illegal to carry a firearm, even with a permit. The armed civilians with permits obey laws.

I'll explain it again. An assault rifle is a rifle that can be fired as a fully automatic weapon, such as a machine gun or military rifle.

The military look a-likes are no different than any other semi-auto hunting rifle except they LOOK like the military rifles. They have become popular because so many of our brave soldiers have been using them in combat and in training and they like to hunt and target shoot with a style they are familiar with. If the shooter had used a Remington or Browning or any other semi-auto hunting rifle the results would be the same

Actually the guns are designed to shoot animals or targets, not people.


----------



## Davey Jones (Nov 3, 2013)

Ya forgot... *DO  forks  make people fat?*



Steve said:


> Although it isn't my country, we in Canada are in a similar situation concerning guns..
> 
> My opinion (and it is only my opinion) is that:
> 
> ...


----------



## Ozarkgal (Nov 3, 2013)

rkunsaw said:


> The latest gunman wasn't stopped by armed civilians because he was in an area where it is illegal to carry a firearm, even with a permit. The armed civilians with permits obey laws.
> 
> I'll explain it again. An assault rifle is a rifle that can be fired as a fully automatic weapon, such as a machine gun or military rifle.
> 
> ...



Excellent explaination, Rkunsaw.  There has been so much  hysteria hyped up over so called assault weapons.  The difference between an Ak-15 and a traditional hunting rifle is cosmetic.  A plastic hand grip, a muzzle flash suppressor on the end of the barrel and a plastic piece on the barrel for heat suppression.  These additions make it look like a bad ass firearm, but in reality it is no more dangerous than any other semi-auto rifle, as Rkunsaw pointed out.  

 JFK was killed by a bolt action .38 caliber rifle, and that's a single shot number.  MLK was killed with a 30-06 caliber hunting rifle.  Granted, these were not mass killings, but devastations to our country, nontheless.

If nut jobs out there are bent on destruction, they will find a way.  You can't legislate mental health, and that's the real problem that needs attention.


----------



## Davey Jones (Nov 3, 2013)

TODAY more and more kids of all ages are finding loaded weapons in their own homes and blowing themselves and others away DEAD.
Today more and more kids of all grades 1 to 12 are bringing loaded weapons to school and accidentally or intentionally killing others.
Im not blaming Mom and Dad anymore like in the past,
Im blaming the gun rights nitwits that thinks every living person in the US has the right to own a gun no matter what the age or mentality of that person is.


----------



## Anne (Nov 3, 2013)

What do you think would work, then??  Mandatory gun safety classes for everyone who buys a gun??  Much stricter background checks or rules???  You realize that that could mean anyone who had ever been depressed for any reason could no longer possess a weapon??


----------



## Jackie22 (Nov 3, 2013)

Davey Jones said:


> TODAY more and more kids of all ages are finding loaded weapons in their own homes and blowing themselves and others away DEAD.
> Today more and more kids of all grades 1 to 12 are bringing loaded weapons to school and accidentally or intentionally killing others.
> Im not blaming Mom and Dad anymore like in the past,
> Im blaming the gun rights nitwits that thinks every living person in the US has the right to own a gun no matter what the age or mentality of that person is.



....big thumbs up here.


----------



## SifuPhil (Nov 3, 2013)

Davey Jones said:


> TODAY more and more kids of all ages are finding loaded weapons in their own homes and blowing themselves and others away DEAD.
> Today more and more kids of all grades 1 to 12 are bringing loaded weapons to school and accidentally or intentionally killing others.
> Im not blaming Mom and Dad anymore like in the past,
> Im blaming the gun rights nitwits that thinks every living person in the US has the right to own a gun no matter what the age or mentality of that person is.



From a recent NY Times article ...



> The .45-caliber pistol that killed Lucas Heagren, 3, on Memorial Day  last year at his Ohio home had been temporarily hidden under the couch  by his father. But Lucas found it and shot himself through the right  eye. “It’s bad,” his mother told the 911 dispatcher. “It’s really bad.”
> 
> A few days later in Georgia, Cassie Culpepper, 11, was riding in the  back of a pickup with her 12-year-old brother and two other children.  Her brother started playing with a pistol his father had lent him to  scare coyotes. Believing he had removed all the bullets, he pointed the  pistol at his sister and squeezed the trigger. It fired, and blood  poured from Cassie’s mouth.
> 
> ...



In EACH case it is CLEARLY the fault of the parent.

Part of owning a firearm - a very LARGE part - is having the intelligence, training and ability to properly SECURE that firearm. That these children died / were wounded is the DIRECT FAULT of their parents. 

Your statement about "gun rights nitwits" clearly shows your position, but it is rife with factual errors. Age is certainly already a legal factor in ownership. Mentality? Reflected in the criminal background checks.

Is it a perfect system? No. Is it better than taking away all the legally-owned guns and leaving only the criminals with firearms? Certainly.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Nov 3, 2013)

Davey Jones said:


> Another one using the assault weapon,this time at LAX but lets not forget Newtown, Aurora, and Tucson and others.
> When are we ever going to learn to ban those military-style assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines?



That was a semi automatic rifle, that was used by a person that was obviously mentally ill and suicidal.  Maybe instead of jumping on these unfortunate incidents with such enthusiastic glee to once again jump on the "ban" wagon, you should be asking some other questions that may have led to the crime even happening. 

 How come the TSA agents/government is spending so much time making law abiding citizens jump through hoops to get on a plane.  We can't even bring a bottle of hair conditioner or deodorant in our bags, we have to take off our shoes like we're all criminal suspects, we have to either get nuked or felt up like we're in a holding pen in prison, before we can board a flight.  BUT...they let someone come into the airport with a rifle in his duffel bag??  Now that's comforting to know how they're protecting all of us from the big bad "terrorists", those TSA folks are doing a stand-up job. 

 And why is it that no airport security workers had a gun to stop this guy, come on now, isn't it obvious that these crimes from these mentally ill people would not go so far if they were just shot by an ARMED security guard??  The military troops on the base at the other shooting were not allowed to carry arms either, and they were well experienced with their use.  They could have quickly stopped that shooter.

What about the movie theater, where there were movie goers who had concealed carry permits, but left their guns home due to the rules of the theater. What about the schools, they'll go to that place for a slaughter, since it's a given that there's nobody in the building with a weapon on them. We'll just call 911, and cower in a corner hoping for the best until the police arrive.  That's right, we don't want anybody to be able to carry a gun to protect themselves or anybody else, we only want the insane person on a mission, to shoot us all down like ducks at a carnival.

Good idea, let's just go ahead an ban all semi-automatic rifles, so that only the criminals and the insane will have them. 



rkunsaw said:


> I am the NRA Davey. Once again it wasn't an assault weapon. Once again it was a mental case doing the shooting. Once again the media will give him much, much more than his 15 minutes of fame so other nut cases will be encouraged to follow suit.
> 
> And here you are jumping for joy for any excuse to ban guns.



The media jumps on the 'ban' wagon whenever there's an incident like this to promote their agenda.  Instead of dealing with the real issues, like why there are so many of these shooters angry and on prescription medication for depression, anxiety, etc.  Prescriptions that have side effects of suicide, homicide and violent behavior.  I've said in another post somewhere that from all I've seen, anti-gun people get a warm and fuzzy feeling when something like this happens, likely have an instant knowing smile on their faces.  I personally am disgusted when I hear of such lives being lost, but even more disgusted when I hear that the security guards had no means of stopping this guy.  What do they do, give them a pocket pepper spray and wish them luck?



Anne said:


> Anyone in that frame of mind will always be able to get a weapon - legal or otherwise.   I don't even like guns, but I wouldn't want to live in a society where they were all banned; which is what the long-term plans are, I'm sure.
> The 'informative' media doesn't spend much time telling us about the homeowners who were able to protect themselves and their families because they had a weapon.



You're right Anne, the bad guys will ALWAYS find a way to get their guns, whether we give up our guns or not.  I for one, want to be able to defend myself and my family if a thief, rapist or murderer breaks into my home.  I don't conceal carry on the street, but will if I ever feel the need to.  There are plenty of cases where responsible citizens who had weapons, save their own lives or the lives of a family member in an attack, and those will ALWAYS be swept under the rug by the main stream media, as it does not suit their agenda for gun control.  I remember the good old days, when the news reports were not so biased and slanted...now you have to dig for the real story if you want it.  I also would not want to live in a society where the guns were banned from the law abiding citizen, and rely on the government or police to babysit me and mine.



Davey Jones said:


> Im blaming the gun rights nitwits that thinks every living person in the US has the right to own a gun no matter what the age or mentality of that person is.



Why am I not surprised that you've already resorted to name calling Davey?  Is everyone that has a different point of view than you an nitwit??  I'm thinking yes.  I am a responsible law abiding citizen, born and raise in the United States of America, and I believe that American citizens should keep their rights to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their families in any situation.  Also, to hunt or target practice, or just collect guns if they choose.  NRA member, and far from a nitwit here Davey.


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 3, 2013)

> The latest gunman wasn't stopped by armed civilians because he was in an area where it is illegal to carry a firearm, even with a permit


At the risk of appearing a bit thick, is this an argument for having no areas where it is illegal for civilians to carry a firearm, including airports, banks and the Olympic village?

I still haven't heard whether the arms he was carrying were acquired legally. Does anyone know?


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Nov 3, 2013)

Excellent points, Seabreeze ! The anti-gun people are definitely looking for every possibility where they can try to disarm Americans. 
Another interesting thing, is that while this shooter was making headlines, and keeping the news channels busy, no one was paying any attention to China, and the news from there, coming out on the same day.

China has developed newer and better nuclear attack submarines, and when putting out their press release about the new attack subs, they also discussed their plans for attacking the West Coast of America, and killing millions of Americans.
I am sure that China, and probably Russia as well, would like to see this country disarmed, and certainly it would not be beyond them to set up and fund some of these bizarre shootings, that now occur more and more often.

Either we have a huge amount more of mentally unbalanced people (prescription drugs from China ?), or these episodes are being set up for the purpose of disarming Americans so we can be attacked.

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/inside-china-nuclear-submarines-capable-of-widespr/


----------



## Davey Jones (Nov 3, 2013)

Anne said:


> What do you think would work, then?? Mandatory gun safety classes for everyone who buys a gun?? Much stricter background checks or rules??? You realize that that could mean anyone who had ever been depressed for any reason could no longer possess a weapon??



Truthfully I have no answers to this mess,I wish some of these mentally disarrenged gun owners would spend their time shooting all the drunk drivers on the road today.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Nov 3, 2013)

Davey Jones said:


> Truthfully I have no answers to this mess,I wish some of these mentally disarrenged gun owners would spend their time shooting all the drunk drivers on the road today.


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 3, 2013)

OldHipster said:
			
		

> People will never willingly give up guns or turn their guns in for money


Has it ever been tried? A lot of people in Australia did just that after our last horrific gun rampage and massacre of innocents - Port Arthur, 1996, 35 killed, no mass random gun crime since then.

I've never said that there should be no guns in the hands of civilians but that people who own guns should have a good reason for having them. I do not have such a reason but if I really wanted one then I could join a shooting club and learn to shoot. I would them have to register my firearm and satisfy the authorities that I had it and any ammunition stored safely. Certain weapons would be off limits to me because they are prohibited imports and if I had one the police could confiscate it. 

The trouble as I see it in the US is that the country is awash with firearms and there needs to be a curb on production and sales of certain categories favoured by nutters who want to take out scores of innocents in one afternoon. With the right to bear arms there must surely also be a responsibility to ensure that gun ownership does not become a serious risk to public safety. 

IMO, only registered guns would be considered to be legal and any others should be confiscated and destroyed. An period of amnesty could be declared to allow people to surrender  illegal and prohibited weapons without prosecution. Of course, my opinion is just that. Others see things differently but all voices need to be listened to in any serious debate so I do not apologise for expressing my opinion.


----------



## SifuPhil (Nov 3, 2013)

Warrigal said:


> Has it ever been tried?



Many times. As was previously said the majority of the guns are non-working. You don't believe the bad guys are going to turn in their new nickle-plated S&W .38, do you?



> I've never said that there should be no guns in the hands of civilians but that people who own guns should have a good reason for having them.



Many of us HAVE a good reason - it's called "the OTHER guy has one". 



> The trouble as I see it in the US is that the country is awash with firearms and there needs to be a curb on production and sales of certain categories favoured by nutters who want to take out scores of innocents in one afternoon. With the right to bear arms there must surely also be a responsibility to ensure that gun ownership does not become a serious risk to public safety.



If I were of a mind to, I could take out scores of people with totally legal firearms, even just a pair of pistols. This mania about "assault weapons", when the majority of speakers don't even know what they're talking about, is simply smoke and mirrors, designed to frighten the herd and drive it in the direction desired - total disarmament and dis-empowerment of the population.



> IMO, only registered guns would be considered to be legal and any others should be confiscated and destroyed. An period of amnesty could be declared to allow people to surrender  illegal and prohibited weapons without prosecution. Of course, my opinion is just that. Others see things differently but all voices need to be listened to in any serious debate so I do not apologise for expressing my opinion.



How would they go about confiscating and destroying the unregistered guns? How would they find them? And once again, they've had plenty of amnesty periods, and they were all laughable. If I were a bad guy with a nice collection of weapons, why would I fear a little fine for owning them when I could make so much more by _using _them? 

No, the genie is out of the bottle and it's far too late to try to stick the cork back in. The only workable option at this point is to allow armed citizens full carry privileges. This has already been done in several of our Western states and has proved to be a powerful deterrent to crime.


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 3, 2013)

Sifuphil said:
			
		

> Many of us HAVE a good reason - it's called "the OTHER guy has one".



In all your life, Phil, have you ever been held up by someone with a gun, or have you ever had to threaten someone with your gun to protect yourself ?


----------



## Ozarkgal (Nov 3, 2013)

Warrigal: 





> IMO, only registered guns would be considered to be legal and any others should be confiscated and destroyed. An period of amnesty could be declared to allow people to surrender illegal and prohibited weapons without prosecution.



 Chicago body count: So far this year 344 people were murdered by firearms in Chicago.  Chicago has one of the strictest gun control laws in the entire US. It's obvious that the laws are not working out as planned.

Do you think these murders were committed by owners of legal, registered weapons? How would you propose confiscating the illegal firearms from the gangsta's?


----------



## Anne (Nov 3, 2013)

Happyflowerlady, you make a good point - it sure does seem like some of these shootings happen conveniently for someone, doesn't it??  Seems there's something else going on elsewhere that we don't notice until later.  Smoke and mirrors, as Phil mentioned...you don't notice what the magicians left hand is doing as he distracts your attention with the right.
Conspiracy??  Yes, but after this happens so many times, one has to wonder what is it we're not seeing??  

Ozarkgal, you're so right about Chicago.  Strict gun control just doesn't work.

Seabreeze, that must have been a terribly frightening experience for you, a lot of people would definitely be anti-gun after something like that.


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 3, 2013)

How far from Chicago do you have to travel  to acquire a gun under laxer legislation ? Not too far, I'll warrant, which I why I said you need national legislation. 

As for confiscation, it won't be easy and it might take a decade or so to achieve significant change but if people want to change society, they can. But they have to want it.


----------



## SifuPhil (Nov 4, 2013)

Warrigal said:


> In all your life, Phil, have you ever been held up by someone with a gun, or have you ever had to threaten someone with your gun to protect yourself ?



Yes. 

Next question? :numbness:


----------



## rkunsaw (Nov 4, 2013)

Warrigal said:


> How far from Chicago do you have to travel  to acquire a gun under laxer legislation ? Not too far, I'll warrant, which I why I said you need national legislation.
> 
> But in Chicago it's illegal to Have a gun, no matter where you got it.
> 
> As for confiscation, it won't be easy and it might take a decade or so to achieve significant change but if people want to change society, they can. But they have to want it.



We DON'T want it. Change is what the idiot called president promised. What a mess he's made


----------



## Jackie22 (Nov 4, 2013)

The people that do not want legislation on background checks and assault weapons are in the minority no matter how loud they scream about their constitutional rights, ALL RIGHTS HAVE LIMITS....the safety of innocent citizens is being compromised, these citizens lives are more important than anyone's rights to own a closet full of AK whatevers and magazines that will hold enough bullets to wipe out a classroom of children.

NO ONE is proposing banning of ALL guns...and when you hear..."Yea, but that is what 'they' want eventually"...you are living in speculation and fear...what if, what if, what if....this country has a real and immediate problem that needs addressing,
the innocent people that have died are real.



It was a Republican president (Reagan) that initiated this ban that lasted 10 years and it proved effective, President Bush said he would sign it if it was reinstated after 10 years, but it was voted out by rural congresspeople.

[h=1]Data indicate drop in high-capacity magazines during federal gun ban[/h]http://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...6d3bb6-4b91-11e2-a6a6-aabac85e8036_story.html 

During the 10-year federal ban on assault weapons, the percentage of firearms equipped with high-capacity magazines seized by police agencies in Virginia dropped, only to rise sharply once the restrictions were lifted in 2004, according to an analysis by The Washington Post. 

The White House is leading a push to reinstate a national ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons after a gunman armed with an AR-15 and 30-round magazines killed 20 children and seven adults in Connecticut. Vice President Biden is holding advisory meetings this week to hammer out a course of action that will address the issue of the larger magazines, which under the lapsed federal ban were those that held 11 or more rounds of ammunition. 

In Virginia, the Post found that the rate at which police recovered firearms with high-capacity magazines — mostly handguns and to a smaller extent rifles — began to drop around 1998, four years into the ban. It hit a low of 9 percent of the total number of guns recovered the year the ban expired, 2004. 

The next year, the rate began to climb and continued to rise in subsequent years, reaching 20 percent in 2010, according to the analysis of a little-known Virginia database of guns recovered by police. In the period The Post studied, police in Virginia recovered more than 100,000 firearms, more than 14,000 of which had high-capacity magazines.


----------



## SifuPhil (Nov 4, 2013)

I can change-out a magazine in under 3 seconds - how is banning high-capacity mags going to stop me from shooting up a classroom? I'll just carry more low-capacity ones. 



			
				Jackie22 said:
			
		

> NO ONE is proposing banning of ALL guns...and when you hear..."Yea, but  that is what 'they' want eventually"...you are living in speculation and  fear...what if, what if, what if....



Speculation based upon informed research and historical precedent. Not fear. Anyone with eyes to see can discern the path this country is taking - if they cannot, then perhaps they are purposely keeping them shut. The recent thread here about the prank full-body scans for a candy shop shows that the majority of the people of this country will go along with anything the authorities tell them, so why is it such a stretch of the imagination to suppose that the government desires a citizenry that is incapable of mounting any type of defense? 

Look what they did to the protesters during the "1%" sit-ins. Look what they did to political dissenters at rallies. Then look at how they gave a light wrist-slap to Bank of America, even when their own employees stated that they were ordered to lie to their customers. Look at all the corruption in the political system and how the cops are the pawns tasked with carrying out inane laws. Look at the Patriot Act in detail, and how it makes ANYONE a target.

Speculation? Hardly.


----------



## Jackie22 (Nov 4, 2013)

Phil, are you disputing the results of the gun legislation that Reagan put forth?

As for your second comment, let me make sure I understand what you are saying....

Are you saying the government is out to take guns from citizens so the citizens can not rise up against the government?  As in Hitler's reign?


----------



## Davey Jones (Nov 4, 2013)

Why am I not surprised that you've already resorted to name calling Davey?  Is everyone that has a different point of view than you an nitwit??  I'm thinking yes.  I am a responsible law abiding citizen, born and raise in the United States of America, and I believe that American citizens should keep their rights to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their families in any situation.  Also, to hunt or target practice, or just collect guns if they choose.  NRA member, and far from a nitwit here Davey.[/QUOTE]

Sorry about that "nitwit"it wasnt really ment for law abiding gun owners.
Im sure the NRA,like any organization, has a lot of nitwits on board that gives it a bad name.
Those are the ones Im talking about.


----------



## SifuPhil (Nov 4, 2013)

Jackie22 said:


> Phil, are you disputing the results of the gun legislation that Reagan put forth?



I'm disputing the overall validity, yes. An analysis by _The Washington Post_ is like getting a compliment from a prostitute - it's shallow, probably only partially true and only lasts as long as you pay for it. 



> As for your second comment, let me make sure I understand what you are saying....
> 
> Are you saying the government is out to take guns from citizens so the citizens can not rise up against the government?  As in Hitler's reign?



No. 

Hitler's methods were crude compared to ours. We have the advantage of 70 years of hindsight into what does and does not work. 

Hitler's methods were Orwellian. Our methods are definitely Huxlean. Huge difference ...

In Orwell's world, communication would be limited between people to prevent conspiring against the government. The destruction and ban of information and knowledge would limit knowledge. Truth would be concealed through repressive control.

In the Huxlean future governments encourage mass distribution of entertainment, as it pacifies the people and diverts attention away from political issues. Our transfixion with entertainment would drown our desire for real knowledge and society would allow itself to be consumed solely with that which is amusing, disregarding anything of importance.


----------



## That Guy (Nov 4, 2013)




----------



## SifuPhil (Nov 4, 2013)

... and of course the "semi-automatic assault weapon" version - the Disintegrator ...


----------



## Davey Jones (Nov 4, 2013)

I hit the nun with one of those elastics ,BOY!!! Did I get it from Dad.


----------



## Anne (Nov 4, 2013)

Agreed about the entertainment, Phil!!  Young people are so involved in 'Walking Dead' , MTV awards, and what the Kardashians are doing, they've no clue and no interest in what's going on politically or anywhere else.   If they vote, it's for the one who promises them more 'help'.

It's not that some of us live in fear - we're cautious and watchful.  Our forefathers knew what happens when people in power get too greedy and corrupt, and that's exactly what is happening now.


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 4, 2013)

Sifuphil said:
			
		

> I can change-out a magazine in under 3 seconds - how is banning high-capacity mags going to stop me from shooting up a classroom? I'll just carry more low-capacity ones.


Interesting use of the first person.
OK, here's my next question.
Why do so many people want to shoot up a classroom full of children or a theatre full of people?
Identify the problem so that it can be addressed in a practical way.

Sydney is currently having almost nightly drive past shootings of houses of men involved with drugs and other illegal activities. Last night a 13 year old daughter of one of the men was hit in the back by shotgun pellets fired through the front door. Otherwise, there is little gun crime except for the occasional armed holdup. We have police units targeting the criminal gangs and criminal bikie groups that are also heavily involved with the illegal importation of guns. It is a constant ongoing battle.

But there have been zero gun massacres since Port Arthur.


----------



## SifuPhil (Nov 4, 2013)

Warrigal said:


> Interesting use of the first person.



Okay, you got me. 



> OK, here's my next question.
> Why do so many people want to shoot up a classroom full of children or a theatre full of people?
> Identify the problem so that it can be addressed in a practical way.



It's a mental problem. Of course, simply _knowing_ that is not a solution, not until we require mandatory testing of EVERY person every month, and even _then_ it isn't going to catch all of them. 

Sometimes there's a long-festering resentment, jealousy or hatred that a skilled sociopath or psychopath can hide away from friends and family for years, then due to one trigger or another they lose control and cross over the line. 

That's why gun control is such a non-issue. It doesn't _matter_ if you get rid of the guns - these people will use bombs, knives, clubs and bare hands to take out classrooms and theaters full of people. The gun is just a tool, like all those other weapons. It's the rage, the mentally-unbalanced primal _rage_, that is the real problem. 

And you can't legislate against _that_. 

Taking away guns from everyone because of these few scattered incidents is like legislating against every single screwdriver in Home Depot because someone was once stabbed with one. It's like punishing the entire class for the wrongdoing of a single student - and every good teacher knows that isn't going to work. It's only going to breed more violence. 

In short, I believe the only way to reduce these incidents is to:



reduce the reliance upon pharmaceuticals to solve emotional problems
institute more stringent guidelines for the ownership of firearms, including training in safe use and storage
bring back the two-parent household

Not likely to happen in MY lifetime ... 




> Sydney is currently having almost nightly drive past shootings of houses of men involved with drugs and other illegal activities. Last night a 13 year old daughter of one of the men was hit in the back by shotgun pellets fired through the front door. Otherwise, there is little gun crime except for the occasional armed holdup. We have police units targeting the criminal gangs and criminal bikie groups that are also heavily involved with the illegal importation of guns. It is a constant ongoing battle.
> 
> But there have been zero gun massacres since Port Arthur.



Granted it's a totally different legislative atmosphere there. There are so many pertinent factors that would need to be weighed in order to make a valid comparison between your country and mine, and I am unfortunately nowhere near qualified to do so. I only go by what I personally see, know and experience.


----------



## drifter (Nov 4, 2013)

When I want a gun I go to a gun show. There's one comes to my town about four times a year because dealers sell a lot of guns, knives and other items here in the western part of the state. I have also sold guns at gun shows. Interesting, someone said guns don't kill people, people kill people. That's what the ARA said, too. People shooting people is a problem, but I'm sure we'll find an answer one of these years. By the way I don't own a gun, but I'm hell on wheels when I take out my bow and arrows or, my slingshots.


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 4, 2013)

Sifuphil said:
			
		

> That's why gun control is such a non-issue. It doesn't _matter_ if you get rid of the guns - these people will use bombs, knives, clubs and bare hands to take out classrooms and theaters full of people. The gun is just a tool, like all those other weapons. It's the rage, the mentally-unbalanced primal _rage_, that is the real problem.



You keep missing my point. Since Port Arthur and our PM's work establishing uniform gun control across the entire country (not gun elimination) we have not had any more gun massacres and we had several before that. NOR HAVE WE HAD ANYONE RUNNING AMOK WITH BOMBS, KNIVES, CLUBS OR BARE HANDS to kill dozens of people. Yes, we still have murders and armed holdups and we will always have those, but things are much better and the population is not being regularly terrorised by mad men with military style guns.

An optimist is someone who looks at a situation and asks how it might be improved. A pessimist looks at the same situation and despairs because it will never be perfect. The optimist acts. The pessimist does not. Only one way will ever result in a better situation.

I'm an eternal optimist, otherwise why would I bother to talk about gun control to a bunch of Americans? eace:


----------



## Jillaroo (Nov 4, 2013)

_I don't wish to be a pain but hasn't there been enough talk over these gun problems on a previous thread of which there is 11 pages, i live in Australia and realise the gun laws in USA are quite different to yours, but no amount of talking about it is going to rectify the problem,i personally would prefer to be talking about nicer subjects, just my opinion._


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 4, 2013)

Posting is optional, Jillaroo, as is reading a thread that clearly indicates the subject matter.


----------



## Jillaroo (Nov 4, 2013)

_Well the way i see it i will refrain from posting as i am disillusioned by all this talk of guns and laws etc , who needs it i thought these topics were supposed to be on the group site._


----------



## SeaBreeze (Nov 4, 2013)

I think of myself as an optimist and a realist.  I'm optimistic that crimes like this can be greatly lowered if, as Phil already mentioned, mental illness and overmedication with mind altering prescription drugs is addressed.   Now that's something that the government might be able to help with. 

 That likely won't happen, because the big pharmaceutical companies are in control and they want profits...period.  They're coming up with new medications all the time, now some they want you to take simultaneously with another for results.  Of course, the side effects are always depression, nervousness, suicidal feelings, homicidal...not to mention the physical dangers, liver damage, etc.

Also, gun safety education for those who own guns, so that they don't get into the hands of the wrong people, and I believe the NRA started out in the interest of gun safety and education.  In addition, concealed or open carry will greatly cut down on these crimes.  States with little gun control are usually states with much less violent crimes, because the criminals know that their potential victims aren't sitting ducks.

As Phil also mentioned was a two parent household, too many children are raised by what they see on their computers, facebook, video games, etc.  They have no social interactions with others, no friends or family and parents to model themselves after...no role models.  Easy for mental issues to develop, so many kids are put on Ritalin at a young age, and it goes on from there.  Single parents aren't too bad if they're present to raise the child, and instill some moral, ethical and financial responsibility...but we're seeing less and less of that.

I'm not being pessimistic, but realistic when I agree that things are not likely going to change in our lifetime.  Taking the guns away from responsible law abiding citizens will not keep the insane and the criminals from getting hold of their firearms.


----------



## SifuPhil (Nov 5, 2013)

Warrigal said:


> You keep missing my point. Since Port Arthur and our PM's work establishing uniform gun control across the entire country (not gun elimination) we have not had any more gun massacres and we had several before that. NOR HAVE WE HAD ANYONE RUNNING AMOK WITH BOMBS, KNIVES, CLUBS OR BARE HANDS to kill dozens of people. Yes, we still have murders and armed holdups and we will always have those, but things are much better and the population is not being regularly terrorised by mad men with military style guns.
> 
> An optimist is someone who looks at a situation and asks how it might be improved. A pessimist looks at the same situation and despairs because it will never be perfect. The optimist acts. The pessimist does not. Only one way will ever result in a better situation.
> 
> I'm an eternal optimist, otherwise why would I bother to talk about gun control to a bunch of Americans? eace:




... and a realist knows that Australia has ALWAYS had a relatively low firearm homicide rate, certainly lower than that of the U.S. Your government also rammed the legislation through by disallowing gun owners to join the Liberal party and charging-off $500 million to your Medicare Levy program. As well, 47% of your population supported gun control.

You won't get those kinds of numbers here. What you WILL get is that we have 313 million inhabitants compared to your 22 million; that we have a much more active gun culture; and that we are perhaps a lot more manic when it comes to individual's rights. 

I'm sorry, Warri, but you can't compare apples to oranges.



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> ... In 2010, a consortium of researchers concluded that Australia's gun  laws were a high cost intervention with ecological evidence only for a  possible role in firearm suicide reduction, and noted that firearm  suicide reductions could not be attributed unequivocally to the  legislation; on this basis, they included the gun buyback and associated  legislative changes in their list of "not cost-effective preventive  interventions".[SUP][45]
> 
> 
> [/SUP] Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found that there was little  evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people  under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial  expenditure associated with Australia's firearms method restriction  measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.[SUP][46]
> ...


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 5, 2013)

> Your government also rammed the legislation through by disallowing gun owners to join the Liberal party


?????  That's news to me.


----------



## SifuPhil (Nov 5, 2013)

Warrigal said:


> ?????  That's news to me.



*shrug*

To me as well, but the Great God Wiki said it so it MUST be true!


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 5, 2013)

Suicide reduction by gun is a by-product. I've been talking about mass shootings, another one of which happened in your country yeaterday but apparently no-one was injured. Just terrorised.



> Allie Cozic, another mall employee, said she saw "someone dressed in all black, carrying a large gun, walk past our store."She said she heard loud bangs about 10 minutes before her store was set to close for the night.
> 
> "It was just chaos. Everyone was just kind of running to wherever they could," Cozic said. "It was almost like when you're watching a horror movie and the killer is walking slowly -- that's what it seemed like. He was wearing all black, it almost looked like body armor of some kind. As soon as I saw the gun, I just turned and ran," she said.
> 
> http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/04/us/new-jersey-mall-shooting/



Just another average day at the mall ?

Where were all the armed civilians who are always ready and waiting to take out the crazy killers ?


----------



## SifuPhil (Nov 5, 2013)

Warrigal said:


> Suicide reduction by gun is a by-product. I've been talking about mass shootings, another one of which happened in your country yeaterday but apparently no-one was injured. Just terrorised.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, he was just your typical Monday-night-security-camera-shooter - that's a garden variety in the Garden State. layful:

Oh, yeah, those armed civilians? In New Jersey the laws are so strong that only former cops can usually get a carry permit. Guess there were no former cops in the mall at closing time. 

See? If the laws for carrying by regular citizens were relaxed maybe someone would have had a chance to take the guy down.


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 5, 2013)

I've been researching the reference to shooters not being allowed to join the Liberal Party. All I've found so far is an article on a site created by "underage journalists" but it is definitely said that they were denied membership, took it to the Supreme Court in Sth Australia and lost. 

We do have a Shooters and Fishers Party now which lobbies for easier gun laws and access to National Parks for recreational hunters. They are also opposed to Marine National Parks. They field candidates for state and federal elections and if they are lucky enough to achieve balance of power in the upper house they use this power to trade with the government. In NSW they have wielded some power over hunting but the Premier, battling out of control gang shootings, is not about to allow easier access to prohibited weaponry.


----------



## Pappy (Nov 5, 2013)

Boy, I wouldn't touch this subject with a ten foot pole. Religion, politics and guns will be discussed for the next thousand years and people will still not agree.

i'll just keep my guns out of sight and enjoy them for target shooting.
PS....I still haven't shot anyone in 75 years. :wink:


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 5, 2013)

It's not very interesting to talk about any topic about which every everyone is in agreement.
I cut my teeth arguing with men in bars on the subject of women's liberation.
It was usually me against the rest in those days with my husband cringing at the other end of the room.
Lotsa fun. 
:giggle"


----------



## Judi.D (Nov 5, 2013)

My grandson wanted a hunting rifle for his birthday, so he could go hunting with his friends. I went to friends who are big hunters, and asked them what they would recommend. I know very little about guns. I went back to my grandson, and told him what they had recommended. He didn't want that one, he wanted this other semiautomatic hunting rifle. I went back to my friends, they told me not to get that one. that he could order a kit over the internet that would convert this particular rifle into a fully automatic rifle, and advised me not to get it. I went back to my grandson and guess what he knew that and intended to order the kit. Needless to say I did not get him any rifle for his birthday. I realize there will be many of you who will think I should.

Of course we can't prevent people from getting guns if they really want one. However, I feel that we can make it more difficult for them to get one.


----------



## Jackie22 (Nov 5, 2013)

.......thumbs up on the last two post

California, is just one of the states that is going forward with smart gun laws and it has proven to work.


http://smartgunlaws.org/the-california-model-twenty-years-of-putting-safety-first/

_*.....and they continue to work on it.....*_


_*California just got safer, and set some amazing records, too. *_On Friday, October 11th, California Governor Jerry Brown signed 10 new gun violence prevention bills — a record for the State of California and the largest number of strong gun bills signed into law by any state in the nation this year. We are proud to have worked with legislators and activists in California to support this crucial and groundbreaking new legislation.

In the bills signed into law, Governor Brown and the California Legislature have prioritized measures to promote gun safety and prevent prohibited people from accessing weapons. Here are only a few of the new, cutting-edge policies that will help keep our communities safe:


AB 500 will require gun owners living with people prohibited from possessing a firearms to store their weapons in a secure manner. That bill will also give the Department of Justice an additional 30 days to conduct a background check when needed to ensure that a gun buyer isn’t a convicted felon or otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms.
AB 231 will help prevent tragic accidents involving guns and children by expanding California’s child access prevention law to allow law enforcement to hold a gun owner liable if a weapon is left in a place where a child may gain access to it.
AB 48 will keep gun manufacturers from skirting California’s ban on large capacity ammunition magazines by banning “conversion kits,” which allow someone to make ordinary magazines into magazines capable of holding up to a hundred rounds of ammunition.
*And these are only a few of the policies that Governor Brown just signed into law.*
Although we are disappointed that the governor vetoed seven strong bills to prevent gun violence, we are extremely pleased with the historic progress otherwise made by the legislature this year. We are proud of the success California has seen implementing smart gun laws and encouraged that it continues to promote effective policies that can make our communities safer. In a year marked with a seemingly endless list of tragic shootings, Governor Brown has heard the voice of gun owners and non-gun owners alike — inaction on preventing gun violence is unacceptable.
*For a summary of all of the gun violence prevention bills, visit our summary of 2013 California legislation to prevent gun violence.*


----------



## Pappy (Nov 5, 2013)

Warrigal said:


> It's not very interesting to talk about any topic about which every everyone is in agreement.
> I cut my teeth arguing with men in bars on the subject of women's liberation.
> It was usually me against the rest in those days with my husband cringing at the other end of the room.
> Lotsa fun.
> :giggle"



i couldn't agree with you more, Warrigal as controversy is always good. I like reading peoples different views, but won't add my advice as I am one of those "gun nuts."and it be all one-sided.


----------



## Jackie22 (Nov 5, 2013)

.......stats showing how the gun laws in California have proved to be successful...

http://smartgunlaws.org/the-california-model-twenty-years-of-putting-safety-first/


----------



## SifuPhil (Nov 5, 2013)

Jackie22 said:


> .......stats showing how the gun laws in California have proved to be successful...
> 
> http://smartgunlaws.org/the-california-model-twenty-years-of-putting-safety-first/



The U.S. as a whole has seen declining gun-death rates, and the differences between California and the rest of the states aren't all that impressive. I believe it might be a case of the politicians once again taking credit for something they didn't do.

There are 30 million more guns in Cally than there were in 1993, and it doesn't matter if they have child-safety locks or tiny magazines, if the wrong person gets hold of them there will STILL be a slaughter. The only difference will be that there will be fewer armed citizens to take down the shooter. 

They're going in the right direction, but there's still glaring holes in the program. They're focusing on the tools and not the wielders.


----------



## Davey Jones (Nov 5, 2013)

re:AB 231 will help prevent tragic accidents involving guns and children by expanding California’s child access prevention law to allow law enforcement to hold a gun owner liable if a weapon is left in a place where a child may gain access to it.

Problem with that law is you have to prove it to be effective.


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Nov 5, 2013)

I guess I just fall into the "possible conspiracy nut" catagory, in my thinking about all the shootings that we have had over the last 10 years or so. Most of the shooters have been on some mind-altering prescription medication, and some have been involved in schools where they have mind control experiments. 
There have been people with guns in their house for self-protection for years and years, but until the Prozac-related drugs came out, we really didnt have these mindless shootings. 

I think they happen one of two ways. First, is the drugged, or mind-controlled person who shoots, and doesnt really even remember what he has done afterwards. They are usually dead afterwards, or in a coma, or some similar state where they can never really tell their story.
The second shooters, are ones where a trained team is sent in to wipe out certain people, and make it look random, as in the recent Navy yard shootings. When those happen, the first reports always describe professional shooters, at least 2, sometimes more, but only one is found afterwards, usually dead, and not a professional shooter, just a deranged person, said to be a loner, and used to be a great person, but now is a mental case.

Another strange thing that I have read about, is that when these shootings happen, there is also a staged DRILL for the same event going on close by. I was listening to the scanner during the Boston Bombing, and there was a drill at the library,and bombs  going off there as well.  There were also several other bombs found and disarmed by the Boston police bomb squad, so there had to be more involved than just two Russian boys with backpacks.
The stories often seem to change as they progress, from first witnesses seeing several shooters, to eventually deciding it was one lone shooter with an assault weapon, in the case of shootings, and even the pictures of the bombs going off in Boston seems to show windows blowing out rather than in.
Since only about 6 large corporations own all of our news outlets, we seem to get pretty much one official story from all of them, and the only place to find anything different is on some of the little Internet forums and webpages.


----------



## Old Hipster (Nov 5, 2013)

Happyflowerlady, I am a full blown conspiracy nut. And I think the same darn thing about a lot of shootings and other things that have been going on in the last well, since Kennedy was killed. 

The shootings in the last few years, MKULTRA anybody, works for me.

I don't feel the need to debate this with anybody however, because 99% of the time I get accused of being in the Tinfoil Hat crowd. 

I just wanted to briefly chime in and say thank you for being so bold to bring this up.

Peace and love sister.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Nov 5, 2013)

You're right Happyflowerlady, there was also suspicious police behavior (preparation for response) for the Aurora movie theater shooting that people were talking about, but NOT on the 6 o'clock news, lol...that will NEVER happen!  The media and the government are in bed with each other, and we're the only ones getting screwed.

Are they conspiracies? 9/11, JFK, Vince Foster, TWA flight, Boston "bombing", etc., etc...or reality being camouflaged and hidden from the public on PURPOSE with disinformation by the powers that be...I say the latter.  The 'sheeple' will put their fingers in their ears and chant la, la, la, la...they regard ALL those stories as "rumors", they prefer to put ALL of their trust and faith in the talking heads on TV and the politicians who are always involved in their own personal theater performance...how else will they gain money, power and control?

I'm much more interested to hear the facts that form people's opinions behind "conspiracy theories", than the BS they try to feed us on FOX or MSNBC.


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Nov 5, 2013)

I have a scanner app on my iPad, so when something comes on the news on tv, I can usually pick it up on the local scanner for that city, providing I get on there fast enough, and then you can hear what is actually being said at the scene, as opposed to what is coming over the tv news. Sometimes the same, but sometimes very different info. 
Even the fire/explosions we have had at the fertilizer plants have had drills for the same thing happening nearby, like the one in Texas, so it is not just shootings that we are being kept in the dark about.
The same people are interviewed as "eyewitnesses" in more than one tragedy, or are shown to actually be a government employee, like the man who had all the kids at his house during the Newtown shooting.
There are a lot of these abnormalities, and you cant really prove anything to anyone, they either have an open mind to it, or they don't, so I usually don't even bring the subject up.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Nov 5, 2013)

I keep an open mind and listen, makes sense to consider what may have really happened.  I like to know those things, if they are happening.


----------



## Anne (Nov 5, 2013)

Happyflowerlady, Old Hipster, Seabreeze, I agree with you - so many times the news will say one thing right after things happen; then later, the story changes.  Why??  I do think there are cover-ups, and we're not going to hear the truth on the major news outlets.

If people really knew what was going on behind the scenes, there might be an uprising or revolution....but again - would we know or would that also be covered up.  So many times when there are protests, we can't even be sure what it's all about, and they are labelled as some kind of nuts.


----------



## That Guy (Nov 5, 2013)




----------



## Old Hipster (Nov 5, 2013)

Wow you ladies are like a breath of fresh air to me. 

Most people don't follow up or want to check into major discrepancies in news stories and witness accounts.


----------



## Sid (Nov 5, 2013)

"Needless to say I did not get him any rifle for his birthday. I realize there will be many of you who will think I should."


     Judi, I am one of the "gun nuts" referred to by others on this board. It is my opinion for what it is worth that the actions you took in your situation did more good in preventing a possible "situation" than stricter gun laws. 


    Actions such as your go much farther than any bunch of politicians can accomplish.


----------



## Sid (Nov 5, 2013)

As for conspiracy theories in my opinion they are just that, theories.
   I understand a theory is developed upon observing things that have happened.
   I do not discount them and I do not put a lot of stock in most of them. Some are simply ridiculous and some seem to have merit. 
   One thing I have observed is that the things that have/are happening seem to have a pattern that fit an overall plan that one would follow if their desire was to bring a people to their knees and cripple this country. Do such people exist? I say YES.
   Am I going to  lose sleep over it? NO
   Am I going to keep a weapon close by? YES


----------



## SifuPhil (Nov 5, 2013)

Sid said:


> ... Judi, I am one of the "gun nuts" referred to by others on this board. It is my opinion for what it is worth that the actions you took in your situation did more good in preventing a possible "situation" than stricter gun laws.
> 
> 
> Actions such as your go much farther than any bunch of politicians can accomplish.



Hear, hear! :applause:



> As for conspiracy theories in my opinion they are just that, theories.
> I understand a theory is developed upon observing things that have happened.
> I do not discount them and I do not put a lot of stock in most of  them. Some are simply ridiculous and some seem to have merit.



It depends upon how you take the meaning of the word "theory". In its strictest scientific sense it is a vigorously proven and widely accepted truth. In the common- language usage a "theory" is only a strong suspicion. 

Which "theory" does "conspiracy theory" apply as? 

In the JFK matter this hypothesis of a shot being fired by a Secret Service agent seems to fit the available facts much better than many other "theories", which are therefore relegated to the common-language usage of the term. At this point, I would award the scientific label "theory" to this version: although it is not widely accepted as yet it does fit many of the data points.


----------



## Sid (Nov 5, 2013)

"Which "theory" does "conspiracy theory" apply as


         I guess I would have to say "A strong suspicion"


----------



## Jackie22 (Nov 6, 2013)

SifuPhil said:


> The U.S. as a whole has seen declining gun-death rates, and the differences between California and the rest of the states aren't all that impressive. I believe it might be a case of the politicians once again taking credit for something they didn't do.
> 
> There are 30 million more guns in Cally than there were in 1993, and it doesn't matter if they have child-safety locks or tiny magazines, if the wrong person gets hold of them there will STILL be a slaughter. The only difference will be that there will be fewer armed citizens to take down the shooter.
> 
> They're going in the right direction, but there's still glaring holes in the program. They're focusing on the tools and not the wielders.



Yes, thats very good that they are declining and I hope it continues, but when you compare our record on gun violence with other countries we are greatly lacking.  I agree California is going in the right direction...and hopefully other states will follow.


----------



## Jackie22 (Nov 6, 2013)

Davey Jones said:


> re:AB 231 will help prevent tragic accidents involving guns and children by expanding California’s child access prevention law to allow law enforcement to hold a gun owner liable if a weapon is left in a place where a child may gain access to it.
> 
> Problem with that law is you have to prove it to be effective.



I think this law would make anyone think twice about securing their weapons.


----------



## jerry old (Apr 6, 2020)

ghost post


----------



## fmdog44 (Apr 7, 2020)

It says a great deal about the bottom line opinion of Americans about gun rights when we witness a rush on gun sales reacting to a national event. To me it says about anti-gun rights people (not all) they make an exception to their convictions when the threat closes in on them and their families.


----------



## win231 (Apr 7, 2020)

fmdog44 said:


> It says a great deal about the bottom line opinion of Americans about gun rights when we witness a rush on gun sales reacting to a national event. To me it says about anti-gun rights people (not all) they make an exception to their convictions when the threat closes in on them and their families.


Yeah, those "exceptions."  A friend of mine is against capital punishment.  When she talks about someone who is especially evil, she says, "Except for him."


----------



## Aneeda72 (Apr 7, 2020)

fmdog44 said:


> It says a great deal about the bottom line opinion of Americans about gun rights when we witness a rush on gun sales reacting to a national event. To me it says about anti-gun rights people (not all) they make an exception to their convictions when the threat closes in on them and their families.


Not all people will make exceptions.


----------



## Aneeda72 (Apr 7, 2020)

win231 said:


> Yeah, those "exceptions."  A friend of mine is against capital punishment.  When she talks about someone who is especially evil, she says, "Except for him."


I am against capital punishment for a shameful reason.  I think the person suffers more with a life sentence.  Years and years of nothing to do but face himself and who he is.  Who of us would want that fate?


----------



## jerry old (Apr 7, 2020)

NRA-good
NRA-bad
Would I become a dues paying member-Hell no, their nuts.

living in the rural: I've had a pickup stolen, used in a robbery then incinerated to hide fingerprints,
 an  expensive spray rig,
outbuilding had tools and other items, has been picked clean... 

If I hear them, I walk to back porch, let off a few rounds.
They usually come at night, they can be heard, not seen.

Would I shoot a burglar in the outbuildings?  YEP, would try to hit them in pelvis or legs, but it takes me a good five minutes to get to back porch.. 
If an unknown person is in my house, BANG, no pelvis 
or legs shots.

In warm weather I often in yard with two canes or walker,
passing vehicles can obviously see I'm disabled.
Thieves  know people in the rural will shoot you, their not stupid, they drive by, look, and look... 

I''m history, I've been picked clean.  They come into out buildings every 3 months or so, when I gone from house;
"Has he bought anything new?"    

When I could walk, I'd find many used syringes discarded on
gravel road.


----------



## jerry old (Apr 7, 2020)

Have watched documentaries of people with exotic weapons on firing range-blowing everything up.

I' have a deer rifle, rounds cost over a dollar a piece.
I wonder how these AR-15, .50 cal  folks can afford the ammo?


----------



## jerry old (Apr 7, 2020)

Capital punishment (see post 80)
Yes and no, ambiguous no, but I know how the courts operate.
Heavy on the NO; Why
Because justice as far as the DA is concerned is to convict at all cost.
  Assistant DA's are judged only on how many convictions they   get; Justice be dammed!   

Prison is a holding tank for those we feel are dangerous.
We, the taxpayers will not accept the taxes required for 
literacy, trade schools, college courses ...
The required tools to 'make it' once prisoners are released
are absent.  So they return to crime...


----------



## win231 (Apr 7, 2020)

Aneeda72 said:


> I am against capital punishment for a shameful reason.  I think the person suffers more with a life sentence.  Years and years of nothing to do but face himself and who he is.  Who of us would want that fate?


People with no conscience have no problem facing themselves & are unable to feel guilt or remorse.  They couldn't have committed such evil crimes if they were capable of remorse.
I know because I have a brother like that.  He's not a murderer, but he's a thief, deadbeat dad, convicted felon, all-around dirt bag.  He considers himself clever when he rips someone off - like all thieves.
I used to make my dad laugh hysterically when I'd ask him, "What the hell were you & mom thinking?  Was the pharmacy out of condoms?  How much did you & mom drink that night?  I want DNA proof that I'm related to him."

In my view, the purpose of capital punishment is to protect the rest of us, rather than "punishment."  When a murderer is in prison, there is always the chance of parole & the opportunity to victimize someone again.  They can't do that after they're executed.


----------



## win231 (Apr 7, 2020)

jerry old said:


> Have watched documentaries of people with exotic weapons on firing range-blowing everything up.
> 
> I' have a deer rifle, rounds cost over a dollar a piece.
> I wonder how these AR-15, .50 cal  folks can afford the ammo?


HAHA.  My S & W 500 is expensive to feed at $3.00 - $5.00 a shot.  I load my own for less than half that.
If the AR-15 is in .223, it's cheaper since it's a NATO cartridge, especially if you buy by the case.  The other caliber AR's are expensive.


----------



## jerry old (Apr 7, 2020)

Win:
If I were your neighbor and saw you lugging in ammo by the case, I would move.


----------



## win231 (Apr 7, 2020)

jerry old said:


> Win:
> If I were your neighbor and saw you lugging in ammo by the case, I would move.


HAHA.  This is America.  You can live anywhere you want to.


----------



## win231 (Apr 7, 2020)

jerry old said:


> Win:
> If I were your neighbor and saw you lugging in ammo by the case, I would move.


I was at the range last month.  The couple next to me ran out of ammo, so I gave them some of mine,  Because the most loving thing you can do is share your ammo.


----------



## Aneeda72 (Apr 7, 2020)

jerry old said:


> NRA-good
> NRA-bad
> Would I become a dues paying member-Hell no, their nuts.
> 
> ...


You should see the used syringes in the city, or maybe not.


----------

