Gun Issues page 37

2293 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Ironically, going by Punisher’s usual stance on such things, if this event did occur, he’d probably steal the dead man’s motorcycle, and any cash the would-be mugger happened to have on him at the time.

.
Street justice?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by rwbstripes:

In the video, a man rushes into a classroom with 20+ people and an instructor. One of those people with many, many hours of firearms training is armed with a handgun. They are using simmunition, so there is no real threat here. Anyway, as the man comes in each and every time the person concealing the handgun is unable to pull out their weapon, as much as they try and are inevitably shot. Several people were tested on this, and only one was actually able to release his handgun from the holster.

Are you talking about FATS, by any chance?

 
Flag Post

America is turning into a dictatorship if you ask me. Gun control is only needed when the firepower of the government and people are equal. However, the anti-gun control people are fighting a worthless war. Let’s say that all gun owners take over D.C., but Obama escapes. Now what? Sure, gun vs gun the army and people may be equal, but the U.S. army has tanks, drones, helicopters and a practically endless supply of ammo. Let’s face it; nothing is going to stop Obama’s new dictatorship over dominating the people.

Next, he’s gonna make himself supreme ruler. What can you do about it? It’s not like you have weaponry similar to our army. So yeah, all hail Barack “Czar Nicholas II” Obama!

 
Flag Post

Are you talking about the transparent government pushing the OWG? You mean this?

http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPPFAQ.pdf

 
Flag Post

Lovin’ the crazy siege mentality, bud.

 
Flag Post

twilight, this is for you.

 
Flag Post

It’s cute, but unrelated!

 
Flag Post

These are the things that are ignored while trying to regulate (BAN) firearms. And if you look at all of the presidents EOs, they will do nothing to prevent mass murders in the future. Its a gun grab, or the beginning of one.

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130117/chicago/video-captures-death-of-cvs-toothpaste-shoplifter

I would also like to know why the UK is spending almost a billion dollars on Tasers when there is no crime there. I would also like to know why our social security administration needs hundreds of thousands of cartridges. What’s more, several of the other government departments have been buying up thousands, millions in some cases, cartridges. There are a lot of odd things going on at the federal level. Government run amok?

Then to top it off we have the left-biased media that publishes gun owners in an attempt be asses, which they accomplished well. Now gun owners are being targeted for burglaries.

http://newyork.newsday.com/news/nation/journal-news-map-listed-guns-permits-stolen-from-new-city-home-cops-say-1.4463741

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

It’s cute, but unrelated!

True, but sometimes we need to smile at life.

 
Flag Post

You didn’t answer my post as to what specifically in the executive orders signed bothers you and why.

 
Flag Post

Several states are now saying they will not allow the Federal Government gun laws to be effective in there states. One of them even said any law officer applying these new laws will be guilty of a felony. Texas has been very vocal about this.

Cruz: Obama ‘High on His Own Power’
By MICHAEL WARREN
https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cruz-obama-high-his-own-power_696232.html

Republican senator Ted Cruz of Texas said Thursday that Barack Obama is “high on his own power” with regard to the president’s announced efforts on gun control. Speaking on Laura Ingraham’s radio talk show, Cruz, who was just elected to the Senate last November, said “this is a president who has drunk the Kool-Aid.”

“He is feeling right now high on his own power, and he is pushing on every front, on guns,” Cruz said. “And I think it’s really sad to see the president of the United States exploiting the murder of children and using it to push his own extreme, anti-gun agenda. I think what the president is proposing and the gun control proposals that are coming from Democrats in the Senate are, number one, unconstitutional, and number two, they don’t work. They’re bad policy.”

Cruz told Ingraham that he does not believe Obama will be successful in passing gun control legislation and that the political ramifications of pursuing such laws could be bad for Democrats.

“I think he’s going to pay a serious political price, and I think the price that’s going to be paid on this is going to manifest in Senate races in 2014, in some red states,” Cruz said. "And there have got to be some Democrats who are up for reelection in 2014 who are very, very nervous right now that Presidnet Obama is picking this fight.

In fact, Texas has an ad running in NY.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/17/us-usa-guns-texas-idUSBRE90G1DA20130117

This is interesting too. He may hit a roadblock from his own party.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/277783-vulnerable-senate-democrats-balk-at-obamas-gun-measures

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

You didn’t answer my post as to what specifically in the executive orders signed bothers you and why.

Yes I did. All of them. They have nothing to do with mass murders. They are a smorgasbord of liberal wants they have been trying to impose for years.

Now please explain something to me. It is being said that reporters were interviewing actors, crisis actors is what they are called. I would like you views on the possibility of this.

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/01/professional-crisis-actors-simulate-mass-casualty-events-2550934.html

http://1079ishot.com/crisis-actors-sandy-hook-shooting/

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/remarkable-resemblance-of-sandy-hook-victims-and-professional-crisis-actors/

This father of a child is caught actually laughing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KkCB2Ee9cqw

 
Flag Post

I was actually wondering what specifically bothers you about each order. I guess the answer you are giving me is—the whole concept.

 
Flag Post

jhco do you believe that if you lost a loving one you aren’t allowed to laugh anymore it’s one possible reaction even to an unexpected and violent death (laughing is a way of reducing stress. These people have been under al lot of stress it’s not weird for them to try and reduce that). Oh and by the way where did they get the bodies from so that no more people opened their mouth (remember the US government has problems keeping secret military tapes secret (the whole helicopter thing)).
Oh and a question you keep saying that the executive order of obama are tyrannical ext. but can you post a link to the top 3 of most tyrannical executive orders you feel obama has given so far?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

I was actually wondering what specifically bothers you about each order. I guess the answer you are giving me is—the whole concept.

I don’t trust our government, haven’t for years. With Obama, I’m really afraid of what is going to happen in the next four years. I’m afraid we will be leaving our children and grandchildren a total mess. No, I don’t like any of the concept.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thijser:

jhco do you believe that if you lost a loving one you aren’t allowed to laugh anymore it’s one possible reaction even to an unexpected and violent death (laughing is a way of reducing stress. These people have been under al lot of stress it’s not weird for them to try and reduce that). Oh and by the way where did they get the bodies from so that no more people opened their mouth (remember the US government has problems keeping secret military tapes secret (the whole helicopter thing)).
Oh and a question you keep saying that the executive order of obama are tyrannical ext. but can you post a link to the top 3 of most tyrannical executive orders you feel obama has given so far?

Honestly, I don’t think I would be laughing after just losing my child. I don’t know anything about these crisis actors, that is why I was asking outside opinions. I will look at the EOs tomorrow night, it is really late here. Remind me if I forget. I will try to put them in the order I dislike them.

 
Flag Post

But EO’s have been around since independence. They’re not some new-fangled thing invented by liberals to screw america over. Your pal reagan signed more of them than any other president since eisenhower – including obama.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

I would also like to know why the UK is spending almost a billion dollars on Tasers when there is no crime there.

a) Source please.
b) Nobody’s ever said there’s ‘no crime here’
c) Without seeing the source I’d have to say it was baloney in so far as, like other ‘offensive weapons’, they’re illegal here (and in several other places).
d) However, we do buy some as some police officers (about 10% if memory serves) are designated firearms officers and carry tasers as a ‘less than lethal’ option for dealing with criminals, for example.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

I was actually wondering what specifically bothers you about each order. I guess the answer you are giving me is—the whole concept.

I don’t trust our government, haven’t for years. With Obama, I’m really afraid of what is going to happen in the next four years. I’m afraid we will be leaving our children and grandchildren a total mess. No, I don’t like any of the concept.

So the government, for the main part, does exactly as you suggested would be appropriate (greater focus on the people with more focus on mental health, training and provision of extra security for schools, etc.) and yet they’re still ‘after the guns’ (despite the fact that not one of the EOs does anything to restrict or ban access to any type of firearm) and you ’don’t like any of the concept?

Shoot yourself in the foot often?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Ironically, going by Punisher’s usual stance on such things, if this event did occur, he’d probably steal the dead man’s motorcycle, and any cash the would-be mugger happened to have on him at the time.

You don’t even know half the things about me and are predicting that I will commit a crime.
Life is not an RPG
PS:- it will be dead men, as they work in pairs.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:
Originally posted by rwbstripes:

What the hell does that mean, Punisher?

I mean shoot em when they turn their backs at you, at least thats what my uncle told me about street muggers who come on a motor cycle, point a mauser , take your mobile and cash and speed away, they usually don’t bother searching.
He told me that the best time to shoot them is that, (just incase if I buy a gun).

YOU & yer unc probably ought to do a weeeebit of reconsideration on that macho bit of “justice”.

At the very least, ya’ll see that doing said action COULD very likely have a criminal prosecutor looking at YOU. At best, ya’ll then know how to better cover up a murder by making it appear more like “self-defense” from a guy speeding away an a motorcycle.

Well, where I live, if a man is walking away after robbing you, you have every right to take him out.
Hell, its even encouraged, a few years ago, a young boy received a presidentail medal for chasing the robbers and killing one of them.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Well, where I live, if a man is walking away after robbing you, you have every right to take him out.
Hell, its even encouraged, a few years ago, a young boy received a presidentail medal for chasing the robbers and killing one of them.

Okay, WHERE do ya live?
AND, what are ALL OF the details in that scenario.
Ya might as well expand on what makes ya believe an action that would be seen as “taking the law into ones own hands” is actually “even encouraged” where ya live.

Does it have to be oneself that is personally criminally wronged?
Can an observation (and confirmation by the victim) by ya be enough to also kill the assailant?
What level of “proof” must be ascertained before use of deadly force is justified?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Well, where I live, if a man is walking away after robbing you, you have every right to take him out.
Hell, its even encouraged, a few years ago, a young boy received a presidentail medal for chasing the robbers and killing one of them.

Okay, WHERE do ya live?
AND, what are ALL OF the details in that scenario.
Ya might as well expand on what makes ya believe an action that would be seen as “taking the law into ones own hands” is actually “even encouraged” where ya live.

Does it have to oneself that is personally criminally wronged?
Can an observation (and confirmation by the victim) by ya be enough to also kill the assailant?

First of all, your writing style makes my head hurt.
Secondly
I am from pakistan.
As for the incidence, I tried but could not find a source yet cuz I have forgotten the name of the ricipient.
but chain of events was lke this:-


  • Two robbers came in kid’s house.

  • Robbed and tried to escape.

  • When they ran away, kid picked his gun and fired at them.

  • They fired back.

  • He killed one of them and died.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by donseptico:
Originally posted by jhco50:

I would also like to know why the UK is spending almost a billion dollars on Tasers when there is no crime there.

a) Source please.
b) Nobody’s ever said there’s ‘no crime here’
c) Without seeing the source I’d have to say it was baloney in so far as, like other ‘offensive weapons’, they’re illegal here (and in several other places).
d) However, we do buy some as some police officers (about 10% if memory serves) are designated firearms officers and carry tasers as a ‘less than lethal’ option for dealing with criminals, for example.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/11/24/britain.tasers/index.html

Some of the important uses for the implementation of Tasers.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/11/24/britain.tasers/index.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203982/Electrician-tasered-50-000-volts-police-bring-having-SCREWDRIVER-pocket.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2145869/Pregnant-woman-tasered-THREE-times-cops-stopped-speeding.html

 
Flag Post

I’m not sure how this data applies to jhco’s position that “most Americans support gun “rights”…",,,at least in the areas of contention ATM.

Nearly six in 10 Americans want stricter gun laws in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting, with majorities favoring a nationwide ban on military-style, rapid-fire weapons and limits on gun violence depicted in video games, movies and TV shows, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.

A lopsided 84 percent of adults would like to see the establishment of a federal standard for background checks for people buying guns at gun shows, the poll showed.

Remember: Polls are polls are polls. One needs to consider the source. We pretty much already are well aware to the “particular biases” of the sources his spring from.

 
Flag Post

This one I actually like.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

These are already in use, promoted by the NRA as 3 strikes. Programs of gun safety have been a part of what the NRA has done for years. They also train most of the law enforcement officers in the country. They also provide some of the training used for special units of the military if I am not mistaken.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

These are acceptable
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

These are dangerous as it puts health officials in a position to ask patients if they have firearms. It has nothing to do with health, but allows government to locate gun owners.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

This one eliminates the ability to use a firearm of self-defense. In some sections of the country where this has been implemented it has gone to a point that in order to bring the firearm into operation you must unlock your firearm, go find your ammunition to load it. This basically takes enough time to make the use of a firearm for defense null.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

We already have one of these.
11. Nominate an ATF director.

These are a scheme for gathering information and keeping a database. although they seem innocuous, they can be expanded to a point of keeping a database of all firearms owners which is a step toward confiscation. All dictators who have gained power go for these lists to disarm the potential enemy of the state. Hitler did this in the name of safety. Up to this point, our congress has made all data collected from gun purchasers be destroyed after so many days. a national registry is a very dangerous thing.
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

This has been tried before and has been a failure. fingerprinting of bullets was one such idea that was found to be easily changed with a rat-tail file. Tags in gun powder cased the powder to be erratic and firearms to actually blow up in some circumstances, causing inquiry and/or death.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop
innovative technologies.

These are an attempt to take more states rights. Now, many states perform the background checks on there own, Just another power grab.
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

Just BS as millions of backgrounds are performed every year and even I know how to perform them.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

Not sure what this one is about.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities

This is throwing money at the problem without any beneficial return. What a church does in none of his business and the states already have their own programs that attempt to cover this in colleges. There is never one scenario that can be used unilaterally. Every instance is different. To pretend that we can come up with a one fits all response is just ignorance.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

This is not the job of law enforcement. Either the person arrested is guilt of a crime or he is not. this is just another intentional bit of red tape to attempt to make it harder to retrieve your property. As it is now, if you have been charged with a crime, your firearm is evidence and will not be returned to you if you are convicted. If you are innocent, you property is returned. You have already purchased your firearm legally and should not have to have another background check. If you pawn a firearm and then pay back the loan you will have another background check. Gun shows perform background checks if you buy a firearm there, even with private sales at these shows. This law becomes an intrusion and is unnecessary.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

Obama’s use of ATF us incorrect. It is actually BATFE.