Could there possibly BE a worse response???

[Roger T]

Our local High School, for the first time in it's HISTORY is/was scheduled to have a Trap League this Spring. This MAY throw a wrench into those plans (I certainly hope not) we'll see. It's taken years to get the Admin. to agree to this.

 

[mike in co]

ladies and gentlemen,
THE MATTER WAS SETTLED IN HELLER VS DC.....

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...
HAS SAID
THE SECOND AMMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IS JUST WHAT IT SAYS IN BLACK AND WHITE.

...."...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"......


FOLLOWING YOUR "REASON" AND LACK OF LOGIC.....


we should ban gasolione.......

drunk drivers cause accidents and cause death...way in excess of the shootings..EVERY YEAR.....

SINCE YOU LIKE BLAMING THINGS INSTEAD OF PEOPLE......BAN GAS AND THERE WILL BE NO DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENTS....

( CANNOT BAN ALCOHOL..it was tried and did not work)

get past the grief and use some true logic.....fix the problem......gun access by sick people...tuff to do...but do NOT BEND THE US CONSTITIUTION TO MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER.

MIKE IN CO

 

[benenglish]

There is already a law against mentally ill people owning guns (check the 4473 form questions).

Sorry, no. The question on 4473 reflects the law. There is a law against the ownership of guns by people who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent. That's a huge, huge difference.

We have a situation in this country where the public mental health care system has fallen apart because, as everybody knows, the invisible hand of capitalism will solve all problems and the capitalist solution for the problem of anyone who can't function in society due to mental illness but has not yet devolved to the point they have blood on their hands is to ignore them, let them live on the street, let them sponge off of scared but loving family but, above all, don't provide the poor bastards any preventative care. There's just no profit in that.

Thus, if you go sufficiently crazy in a sufficiently public place that you wind up standing in front of a judge who has the power to declare you incompetent, it may become illegal for you to own a gun.

If you're one of the vast majority of mentally ill people who are coping as best they can, many of them sliding down a slope to real insanity with nothing to arrest their decline, and have never stood before a judge, then it's perfectly legal for you to be mad as a hatter and still own guns.

I assume that some of the legislation we'll see next year will attempt to address this situation and I can easily envision solutions that create far worse problems than we now have.

To be moderate in my tone - I am concerned for the future. For now, we should keep our heads down (The NRA made their Facebook page unavailable, a smart move.), don't give the antis a place to focus their rage, allow the bereaved to wail until their tears are exhausted, and then be prepared to join the battle to preserve human rights in the USA with integrity and resolve. Next year is gonna be tough.

 

[tbird1960]

I remember years ago when S&W bowed to Clinton and my attitude toward them changed forever. I have not bought a gun from S&W since. I will remember Dick's sporting goods and I will deal with them the same way from now on. The Constitution says exactly what it means and America will follow it. I am now and always have been amazed at how young and how smart our founders were.

 

[goodgrouper]

Sorry, no. The question on 4473 reflects the law. There is a law against the ownership of guns by people who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent. That's a huge, huge difference.

True, those who have a mental illness and fly under the radar are going to get around this law. So why make new laws that we can't enforce when we can't enforce the laws we already have?

 

[JJ-IA]

I’m trying to figure out what role some of the people in this thread would have played in the 1984 movie Red Dawn.
They would be in the fenced compound with the rest of the gun owners that didn’t resist. And they’d be the ones looking for favors by turning in people they felt had a more dangerous guns, or more ammo than them.

 

[benenglish]

True, those who have a mental illness and fly under the radar are going to get around this law. So why make new laws that we can't enforce when we can't enforce the laws we already have?

I don't accept that the mentally ill are making any conscious effort to fly under the radar so that they can own guns. If you mean that they are doing do deliberately, I think you're being silly. Nobody chooses to have mental problems. I hope I misunderstand you on that and apologize if I do.

Still, I strongly agree that "new laws that we can't enforce" are a bad idea.

But Mike in Co hit it on the head with "...fix the problem.....gun access by sick people..."

People are going to try to fix that problem. They are going to try to do so by passing laws that they think they will be able to enforce.

As gun owners, are we simply going to say "That's impossible!" then stick our fingers in our ears and hum when anyone makes a proposal?

Personally, I think someone will come up with a proposal that includes:
1. Making it easy to tag someone as "disturbed" without a legal finding of incompetence.
2. Making sure all the databases of "disturbed" folks are merged.
3. Changing the instant check system to initially deny all transfers if there is a "disturbed" person in the same household.
4. Then, requiring that transfer approvals will only be granted if applicants show they maintain a high-quality storage system that prevents the disturbed person from accessing their firearms.

On the surface, this sounds reasonable and if someone were to introduce it right now, I think it might pass. After all, it's not gun control; it's nutjob access control.

However, the downsides are horrific.

1. The ability to designate someone as "disturbed" will be delegated lower and lower until if the local police chief doesn't like you, you'll wind up in some database you shouldn't be in.
2. Discrimination against the people in those databases will become widespread.
3. Getting yourself off the list will be impossible.
4. While sending people off to the gulags for mental illness is unlikely, effectively the same result would happen as those people get cut off from the world.
5. The storage requirement would almost certainly force people to allow LEO inspections inside their homes for reasons that would violate any sane interpretation of the 4th.
6. None of this would work unless face-to-face transfers were prohibited and all transfers went through a dealer and NICS. A little illegal recordkeeping and you have a de facto gun registration system that paves the way for total future confiscation.

What I'm saying is - While we can agree on the basic problem (I agree with Mike about something; this is an interesting day), even a solution that seems reasonable on the surface will be leveraged by the anti-gun crowd to make life miserable for gun-owners and effectively, if not legally, deny our 2nd amendment rights.

Thus, my earlier statement that I'm concerned for the future. This stuff is all going to be talked about for a long time and most of the talking will be done by the folks at polar opposites, screaming at top volume, with no one actually listening.

What I fear is that the general public that has for a long time accepted firearms as just a part of US society without giving them any real import when deciding how to vote will, if the two sides do nothing but unproductive screaming at each other for the next year, simply give in to emotion. They'll think of slain children, decide the issues are too complex to work out, and simply accept that if firearms pass from US civilian ownership, nothing of value will have been lost.

Right now, reason does not rule. Wounds are too fresh. Those who would leverage that pain to push the U.S. towards a bad end are gleefully jumping into the fray. For now, I say the best response is no response. A bit of shame for politicizing the tragedy will go a long way for now but rational arguments on the merits must be delayed for months, until emotions are not quite so raw.

 

[vicvanb]

Let us not fight but rather let us reason together to fix what is wrong. If we had to pick up and clean the blood off the little bodies of those children and their devoted teachers I believe we would both see this problem in a different light.

The constitution was never meant to be a suicide pact.

Thanks, Bill, for your perspective. We need to realize that after Newtown, the "guns don't kill people..." and "pry my cold dead hands.." days are over. If the NRA continues to argue its hardline, no compromise, slippery slope dogma, it will be seen as even more of a fringe group than it already is. Gunowners and the organizations that represent us now have the chance to be part of the solution. If we remain part of the short-term problem, we'll lose everything in the long run.

Those who think we should just dig in our heels and cite our constitutional rights have no concept of how deeply the senseless killing of twenty 6 and 7 year-old kids affects the vast majority of Americans, or how much pressure they will put on their politicians to act.

 

[vicvanb]

Could there possibly be a worse response?

Yes--Dick's could have continued to sell assault rifles one of which was used today, tomorrow or next week to kill 20 more little kids.

 

[mike in co]

SO WHAT OTHER CONSTITUTUIONAL RIGHTS ARE YOU WILLING TO COMPROMISE ON ?

free speech..except you cannot speak against the current administration....demonstrators are kept away and have been arrested for opposition views.

freedom of religion as long as it matches the current administration.

no military in your house...well we are on finacial hard times, so you now get to feed and house four army personel.

no false arrest...lol you gave that up already in post 911

search and seizure...opps gave that one up under post 911

right to question witnesses...naw you dont need that..they would not lie....

just where will you draw the line????


"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
ben franklin...


mike in co

Thanks, Bill, for your perspective. We need to realize that after Newtown, the "guns don't kill people..." and "pry my cold dead hands.." days are over. If the NRA continues to argue its hardline, no compromise, slippery slope dogma, it will be seen as even more of a fringe group than it already is. Gunowners and the organizations that represent us now have the chance to be part of the solution. If we remain part of the short-term problem, we'll lose everything in the long run.

Those who think we should just dig in our heels and cite our constitutional rights have no concept of how deeply the senseless killing of twenty 6 and 7 year-old kids affects the vast majority of Americans, or how much pressure they will put on their politicians to act.

 

[JJ-IA]

Ultimately Ruger firearms is responsible for this tragedy.
If the Mini-14 wasn’t such a POS, law enforcement and everyone else would still be using it today instead of the quality AR-15 clones.

 

[mike in co]

i did a little research..not much...
listed firearms at the scene
bushmaster ar style rifle with multiple mags....
glock 10mm multiple mags
sig 9mm
( a shotgun in the car not used at the school)

gentlemen,
none of these are "saturday night specials"
these are quality firearms.
if you want to ban the ar rifle, then why not the handguns ??

when does the infringement stop ?
again and again the guns did nothing..a person did and another person allowed access.
hold them( and thier estates) liable..not the rest of the world.
we had columbine...
in denver we have mr mauser that cannot accept that his son was killed by a person. all these years later it is still the guns fault to him and he is anti gun..because he is not adult enough to realize that a person pulled the trigger..the gun did nothing by itself.
or was it the powder manufacturer or the bullet maker or the primer maker or the case maker, or the company that assembled it, or the company that made the packaging or the distributor or the store that sold it .....

mike in co

 

[gonehunting378]

I'm with Mike on this one! Don't give the commies an inch.you don't take my guns because some bug eyed freak in Connecticut broke the law! I feel terrible about what happened, it makes me sick. I'm not gonna go out and protest to have cars banned because he stole his moms car in order to get himself to the school. What kind of retardation would that be.

Tom

 

[goodgrouper]

I don't accept that the mentally ill are making any conscious effort to fly under the radar so that they can own guns. If you mean that they are doing do deliberately, I think you're being silly. Nobody chooses to have mental problems. I hope I misunderstand you on that and apologize if I do.

No problem.

 

[goodgrouper]

Thanks, Bill, for your perspective. We need to realize that after Newtown, the "guns don't kill people..." and "pry my cold dead hands.." days are over. If the NRA continues to argue its hardline, no compromise, slippery slope dogma, it will be seen as even more of a fringe group than it already is. Gunowners and the organizations that represent us now have the chance to be part of the solution. If we remain part of the short-term problem, we'll lose everything in the long run.

Those who think we should just dig in our heels and cite our constitutional rights have no concept of how deeply the senseless killing of twenty 6 and 7 year-old kids affects the vast majority of Americans, or how much pressure they will put on their politicians to act.

Well, count me as the Constitutional heel digger then. Of all the amendments to the Constitution, I believe the 2nd is the most important. Why? Because it not only provides for the security of the citizen, but also the security of ALL THE OTHER RIGHTS. Without the second amendment, there is no protection from tyranny. Countless other cultures can attest to this from their own histories.

Those seeking to take away your freedoms will not do it all at once, but rather inch by inch, bit by bit. They want you to compromise and voluntarily give up some of your rights. You are playing right into their hands. Again. America has a short term memory. See, we tried all these gun law restrictions years ago and it didn't accomplish anything except for creating record firearm sales.

And frankly, I find it disturbing that there are people on a gun-loving forum who are so quick and eager to throw in the towel. Do you honestly believe that more gun laws are going to keep people like this from getting guns or bombs or other deadly weapons? NO! Since when do criminals obey the laws????

 

[benenglish]

...Of all the amendments to the Constitution, I believe the 2nd is the most important. Why? Because it not only provides for the security of the citizen, but also the security of ALL THE OTHER RIGHTS....

I'm with you but I'm afraid I'm more pessimistic.

Back in post #30, Mike laid out just a bare minimum overview of something I alluded to earlier - rights that have already been lost. The 2nd provides security for all the other rights, yes, but all the other rights are already gone.

This is not the place to catalog the erosions of civil rights in the U.S. over the last couple of decades but that erosion is, essentially, complete. Take any right, study the way it is abrogated in practice and process at every level of government today, and the conclusions you must make are quite clear. The rights us oldsters were taught about in civics class simply no longer exist. The rights alluded to by the Declaration of Independence are scoffed at by scholars who consider that document to be outside the canon of current law.

The 2nd amendment protects the last civil right we have left in the United States. If it is lost, our demise as a nation may be slow or it may be breathtakingly quick but, in the end, American-style representative democracy will have proven a failure.

The stakes couldn't be higher right now. Unfortunately, right now the genius of The Founders and all the wonderfully, elegantly rational arguments that we all know by heart count for nothing. People are so caught up in emotion, they'd vote for a re-animated Hitler if they believed he could prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

This shooting was a gift to the people who believe populations should remain tightly controlled, nice-playing little consumers who never rock the boat and show up to work on time every day. Don't play into their hands by trotting out rational arguments. Condemn the shooter. Condemn the use of a tragedy for political gain. And wait until people can talk about this without bursting into tears before you try to convince anyone that gun control is a bad idea. Move too soon and we'll push those people so far in the wrong direction that we'll never have any hope of helping them understand reason.

 

[alinwa]

I feel like starting another thread but I won't........

Here's what REALLY happened out here in "The Clackamas Mall Shooting." (I live here, the mall's right down the road)

http://www.nwcn.com/news/183794641.html

AN ARMED CITIZEN MADE HIMSELF KNOWN AND THE PERP KILLED HIMSELF

End of story.

It took several days and a BUNCH of pressure from local Conservative Radio Host Lars Larson but here's a prime example of how the game should be played. The story has never been covered by any mainstream media as far as I know..... the friggin' OR cops took credit as usual altho they had NOTHING to do with resolving the issue and our trusty media is slobbering "gun control, gun control."

And gun owners like several of the posters here are feeding the frenzy, GIVING the banners credibility.

sick

Bad guys happen.....

People die.....

BABIES die (liberals murder millions of them)

People also protect each other in our society, it's called "societal trust."

IMO ANYONE who works to limit our collective ability to own guns actively betrays our societal trust.

Being ballless is one thing, it's OK, but advocating, even legislating others to be ballless must be called as the crime it is.

Our founding fathers were GIANTS, it hurts me to see their heirs thinking like children.

"Men" whining like babies instead of manning up.

I'm saddened

Al

 

[Bill Wynne]

I believe that it is not an infringement on the rights protected by the second admenment for our government to establish limits and regulations on legal firearms. There was a day in this country when us citizens could not legally own a sawed off shotgun, a machigine gun, or a firearm with a silencer. These laws did not limit me or my law abiding friends.

There are laws on the books that set limits on how many bullets my rifle can hold and what caliber it can be to hunt various game. My shot gun that I use for dove hunting cannot hold more than three shells.

It would not bother me much if I could no longer use my 5" Cannon. It would make sense to me if some teachers in
schools were armed and bad guys did not know which teachers were packing heat. There are churches in my state where some of the worshipers are quietly armed.

Because I do not trust our administration on this, I would like to see the NRA and other gun people at the table rather than a bunch of pandering politicians. As I said earlier, "Changes are coming".

 

[Stonewall]

Many years ago in Quebec after a similar tragedy a politican said that you can't legislate against insanity.

He was ignored.


Glenn

 

[lion]

Hunting regulations are one thing. What I need to defend myself against a tyrannical government is a whole different situation that I am not going to get into a p*****g contest over. Other peoples opinions will differ from mine. Wayne