Biden: Obama exploring executive orders to combat gun violence

Two Peas is Closing
Click here to visit our final product sale. Click here to visit our FAQ page regarding the closing of Two Peas.

Posted 1/9/2013 by *Steffie* in NSBR Board
< 1 2 3 4 5 >
 

*Kath*
Official Time Clock of 2Ps

PeaNut 2,739
February 2000
Posts: 10,072
Layouts: 0
Loc: On a cruise ship fighting zombies

Posted: 1/9/2013 11:23:20 PM

That is why you will find much talk of militia and insurrection/rebellion. Those would be domestic foes.

All of which, taken together, illustrates the natural and intended limitations to the right to bear arms. Just like all the other rights, they are not unlimited and the framers obviously intended the same with this right as with the others.

People have been running around in America for 200+ years with unlimited guns legally, so, no, I don't really understand your point about the framers wishing to put limitations on all citizens carrying guns. They wouldn't have even had the ability to carry out such a desire. They wanted the ability to protect themselves, the establishment, the innocent people if an attack came from those who wished harm to the United States of America, but the only thing they could have done to fight off an attack is fight back with guns and canons and what not and take off on horses after groups of people who wished them ill.

I hardly see how that corresponds to now 200+ years later suddenly reinterpreting law and putting into play regulations and limitations and possibly taking away weapons from every law-abiding American citizen that has one who isn't doing anything but keeping the weapon for self-protection.



--------------------
Welcome to Hotel California, the Green Room, where the laws of physics don't apply, effect determines cause, Deja Vu is Master, and the white rabbit runs free.

Your punch-in has been duly noted.



AmeliaBloomer
BucketHead

PeaNut 509,476
May 2011
Posts: 815
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/9/2013 11:39:15 PM

... Simple answers minus the coarseness.


Aslan,

Can I purchase this quote-fragment, please? I'll take a bumper sticker....and maybe a mouse pad.

Heck, throw in the travel mug.



maddiesmum
BucketHead

PeaNut 574,034
December 2012
Posts: 975
Layouts: 0
Loc: Obamaland

Posted: 1/9/2013 11:48:11 PM

Then you clearly are not a student of history, or you would fully understand and support the opposition to a national registry. Registration, confiscation, extermination. It has happened time and time again. Just because this is America, you don't think it can happen here? Just because Europe has this far escaped a repeat of WWII, that it can't or won't happen again? That is incredibly naive.


You're nuts, Lynlam. Skybar is too.

TheOtherMeg
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 463,585
April 2010
Posts: 2,326
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/9/2013 11:49:16 PM

Well, if it *is* what the people want, then it should be left to Congress to change things; not the president unilaterally imposing his will.

I'm all for more limits and regulations regarding buying & owning guns, but even a tree-hugging liberal like me feels tampering with the Constitution is a job for Congress, not the President.



You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists. ~Abbie Hoffman




BuckeyeSandy
Old Dogs are Best!

PeaNut 92,987
June 2003
Posts: 23,741
Layouts: 367
Loc: With my dogs

Posted: 1/9/2013 11:55:39 PM
Asian, I actually wanted something that had "balance" to post here. That site was about the best without the hysteria that a few sites are doing right now.

Both sides of this situation both have valid points. I tend to go with there is good reason to keep arms. And the occasions not to are not all that numerous.

I love your quote too!


Sandy
Every MOM is a working mom!
"Retired" after 22 years of an Air Force Career

REMEMBER this Veterans Day

To quote Wayne Gretzky, "You miss 100% of the shots you never take."

Aesculus
Uploaded with iPhone client

compeater opeator
PeaNut

PeaNut 376,677
May 2008
Posts: 422
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/9/2013 11:57:33 PM

People have been running around in America for 200+ years with unlimited guns legally, so, no, I don't really understand your point about the framers wishing to put limitations on all citizens carrying guns.


I have absolutely NO problem with having the weapons that were available 200 years ago legal and available for people to be running around America with. I DO have a problem with people running around America with the newer assualt type weapons that most citizens (other than military and law enforcement)have no need for.

And I, like you, also love America and want to protect our rights and people.

*Kath*
Official Time Clock of 2Ps

PeaNut 2,739
February 2000
Posts: 10,072
Layouts: 0
Loc: On a cruise ship fighting zombies

Posted: 1/10/2013 12:00:05 AM

Kath, I'm enjoying your posts, as they seem to be thoughtful and reasonable.


Thanks, Nightowl scrapper, and great post!!

Off to bed for another round of sleep and work. It's been a really good discussion. I forget sometimes how much I miss you guys, all of you, poli peas, with your interesting and thoughtful words, so much to think about. Have a good one!



--------------------
Welcome to Hotel California, the Green Room, where the laws of physics don't apply, effect determines cause, Deja Vu is Master, and the white rabbit runs free.

Your punch-in has been duly noted.



*Steffie*
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 375,761
May 2008
Posts: 2,974
Layouts: 26
Loc: Northern Ohio

Posted: 1/10/2013 12:48:19 AM

Then you clearly are not a student of history, or you would fully understand and support the opposition to a national registry. Registration, confiscation, extermination. It has happened time and time again. Just because this is America, you don't think it can happen here? Just because Europe has this far escaped a repeat of WWII, that it can't or won't happen again? That is incredibly naive.


You're nuts, Lynlam. Skybar is too


And there is the point from my thread the other day.

Truth is every one I know IRL that are against these changes are afraid of exactly this. For many people it goes beyond gun control...it is what could happen could happen to this country should guns be taken away. Brush up on history of other countries before you call someone Nuts.

mapchic
Top Tier Pea

PeaNut 31,157
February 2002
Posts: 12,615
Layouts: 55
Loc: Chicagoland

Posted: 1/10/2013 1:05:22 AM

I'm talking about preserving the right of a physician to ask public/private health related questions as part of his/her assessment and educational role. In fact he has the duty too.
I think we have very different understandings of what a doctors job is.

I am totally ok with doctors asking any questions they may choose to. I am not ok with doctors being required to ask questions about guns or recording the answers in any way. I do not think that doctors have an educational role about guns at all.

Any effort to use doctors as proxies for gun regulation will take doctors limited time from providing medical care and will also cause problems with the doctor patient relationship damaging patients ability to trust their doctors.


I could not access the link on the first page about gun deaths and kids (I just get a blank page). The statistics about gun deaths and children can be manipulated (as all statistics can be). How are they counting children? If it is everyone under the age of 21 then lots and lots of gang members are included in those numbers. I am sorry to say, the local doctor is not going to be the one to stop gang members gun toting ways.

When I look at the numbers that can found on the CDC website . here it is clear that until the age of 15 the leading causes of death in children are accidents and medical. It is the age range of 15-24 when the second leading cause becomes homicide - and I think it is reasonable to assume that those cases are often gang related. The CDC page doesn't get down to the granular level of what is used in those homicides but I think it is reasonable to assume that firearms are often used.



I don't understand why students of the second amendment are so opposed to a national registry
I would hardly call myself a student of the second amendment. More a supporter of protecting the civil rights set out in the constitution.

As I have said here on 2peas many times... as sure as day follows night confiscation follows registration. That has happened in the UK, Australia, South Africa, California, NYC, Zimbabwe and many more places around the world. Because of this very long very bad history gun rights supporters will fight any registration.

Gun registration has never been found to reduce crime. If not for future confiscation then to what purpose would you have law abiding gun owners register their firearms?

The 'trust us' defense of gun registration doesn't work. It has been tried time and time again, and I doubt many gun owners will 'trust' a government where the president eschews the constitution and regulates guns through executive order. At that point there will be little if any trust left.


I'll ask again- if the militia is to be regulated and if its existence is to secure a free state, than who is to do the regulating? It would seem that a first step in regulating would be to have a registry of sorts- no?
The militia is made up of the people who would be doing the fighting... not the guns they would be using. The well regulated militia is handled through selective service and the draft if necessary. That is a regulation of people - not arms.

The second section of the amendment says that it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms... not the militia. All other rights reserved for 'the people' in the Constitution are individual rights - not collective rights. It is the right of 'the people' not the militia to keep and bear arms (and that right shall not be infringed).


I DO have a problem with people running around America with the newer assualt type weapons that most citizens (other than military and law enforcement)have no need for.
You know the term 'assault weapons' has no meaning right? Also - how do you define 'newer'? The AR-15 was developed 50 years ago - hardly a new gun.





"When someone asks you 'think about what Jesus would do', remember that a valid option is to freak out and turn over tables" -- Unknown

“I am a Roman Catholic - the one true faith, (the Microsoft of Christianity) and I know Roman Catholicism is the one true faith because Roman Catholicism tells me it’s the one true faith... And if you remember from earlier in this sentence Roman Catholicism is the one true faith – so how could it be wrong?” ~ Stephen Colbert ‘The Word’ 11-28-06

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit

wren*walk
PeaAddict

PeaNut 481,431
September 2010
Posts: 1,822
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/10/2013 1:39:35 AM

I am totally ok with doctors asking any questions they may choose to. I am not ok with doctors being required to ask questions about guns or recording the answers in any way. I do not think that doctors have an educational role about guns at all.

Any effort to use doctors as proxies for gun regulation will take doctors limited time from providing medical care and will also cause problems with the doctor patient relationship damaging patients ability to trust their doctors.




With all due respect, I wouldn't think doctors care a whit what *you* consider their job description is. Or what their duties are. You see, they have decided that for themselves over the centuries, as have other professions. They are pretty much self governing in that respect and seem to be doing a pretty good job of it without your opinion on what they should or should not be asking or doing.

Their various professional and governing bodies are the only decision making forums of note or authority on what should and should not be within a doctor's scope of care, and I for one would not pay much heed to anyone not associated with one of them.

The statistics that you could not access on the other page are linked again below. You will be able to see from the table that guns are the SECOND leading cause of death among children and young adult. (This is data FROM the CDC itself, which has the stats further sub-divided down into age groups from 0-6 and up. All available on their website in pdf.) This particular breakdown was printed in the New England Journal of Medicine, hardly a hotbed of liberalism. BUT a revered medical journal with an interest in public health data. Such as any of the other data in that table, and what it has to tell doctors about how to deal with the leading causes of, oh you know, preventable deaths.

You will also see that another professional body, The American Academy of Pediatrics, have recently put out a new policy statement concerning these shocking statistics and their ramifications for child medicine.

gun deaths kids cdc


So if you are really trying to suggest that you or anyone else without the requisite qualifications gets to have a say on what doctors do or do not do in the realm of public health, I'm afraid I have to not only strongly disagree but actually laugh out loud at your hubris.

BTW, these pediatric screenings or questions about firearms in the home are not new. And as stated before, where the health and well being of the child is concerned, the doctor or other health care worker has not only a legitimate right to ask, but a DUTY to act if they believe a child is endangered.












compeater opeator
PeaNut

PeaNut 376,677
May 2008
Posts: 422
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/10/2013 2:00:32 AM

Well, first you need to let us know what YOU think an "assault weapon" is...


I assume this is a kind of rhetorical question? That you really are not interested in what I consider an assault weapon to be, but instead pointing out that there will always be differences in what people feel should be regulated.

We (general we) can obviously discuss, refute every comment and point, find statistics and/or articles to support our opinion or to disprove the other side indefinitely without changing each side's view. So I really am not trying to, instead I am just stating my opinion. Take it for what it is worth, just an anonymous person on an internet message board...not worth much.

Obviously all those things you mentioned have changed as society has progressed. However with all of our progress and technicalogical advances we (as a society) usually agree that this means we need to re-evaluate rules/regulations/restrictions pertaining to these advancements.

Why do we have speed limits and car engine restrictions? The majority of people will drive safely and will operate vehicles in a reasonable manner. Yet we feel it necessary to put in some precautionary rules and regulations and restrictions to protect innocent people from those who won't. We don't outlaw all fast cars; instead we try to put in reasonable restrictions to protect the majority of our citizens. Do we have the same laws and regulations today that we had when the motorized vehicle was starting to be massed produced? No, we have had to change/update them as the car has become a huge part of our society. The same could be said about any law. We are not a stagnant society so why should our laws of the land be? I don't know anyone (on either side of the debate) who thinks that a citizen should not have their constitutional right to bear arms.

I know I will be called out for not comparing apples to apples. But I do think that there is a correlation in that no one is trying to take away anyone's right to own guns..just that we need to have reasonable regulations and restrictions to protect our citizens...all of our citizens, young or old and armed or not. And I don't think it is anymore apples to oranges than many of the other comparisons I have seen.

For full disclosure: I am from a hunting/gun owning family, from a state that has very few gun control laws, live in a very liberal city that is trying to ban assault weapons and probably have family and friends who fall on both sides of the fence.

scrappower
Allons-y Alonso

PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 15,754
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/10/2013 7:20:15 AM

People who use that terminology are either politicians posturing to make it sound like they are really trying to do something or they are citizens who believe those politicians and don't have any real gun knowledge.


Stuff like this is why people dislike your delivery. Talk about condescending.



mom2ja2
PeaAddict

PeaNut 120,889
December 2003
Posts: 1,817
Layouts: 5
Loc: Indiana

Posted: 1/10/2013 7:37:42 AM
I'm never going to understand the passion to defend the AR-15.

I don't get it. I don't get the whole "you know it's not an assault weapon" points.

I don't get the "it's the same as every other gun" comments.

It appears the discussion just stops because it's more important to say "that's not an assault weapon" or "it's the same as ALL guns"

So, maybe we need to flip how we say it.

What does it do better than the other guns?

I personally know it's not a better hunting gun.

I wouldn't think it's a better protection gun...someone is breaking in your front door & you're gonna grab your AR-15...I wouldn't think that's a gun that you have hanging above the mantel. I would assume the type of person who has guns for protection is a responsible citizen & that kind of gun would be locked up with ammunition also locked up...so no way to really get that...plus the chance of hitting someone else or shooting holes into your neighbors house would just be too risky.

I have said repeatedly I'm not in favor of taking away all guns, but clearly we have a problem with a lot of working pieces & one of those pieces, like it or not is the accessibility of guns.

Are the AR-15s completely off the table to discuss...or is it just that they are being discussed wrong that is bothering the defenders of these guns so much?

I never have time to check back during the day...so I'll just add one comment...while I personally think no one needs those guns, I could be convinced that citizens have the right to have them, if those citizens agreed to jump through many hoops to prove they were responsible & the people they lived with our responsible. In fact, I feel that way for all guns I guess. And I wouldn't think that's too big of a stretch for responsible gun owners. I certainly wouldn't want to wake up one day knowing my crazy brother took all the guns & shot up a mall.












**********************************************************
One sees clearly only with the heart. Anything essential is invisible to the eyes. (the little prince)
**********************************************************
Mom to 3 great kids!

~*kristina*~
Typical Liberal Pea

PeaNut 55,230
November 2002
Posts: 18,604
Layouts: 106
Loc: Fly Over Country

Posted: 1/10/2013 7:41:06 AM

pay attention to those around BO - in his cabinet, his picks for SOD, CIA - his czars, Even Jarrett.

Jarrett is a very close friend of Bill Ayres (and his family) - since childhood.

Her xFIL worked closely (in Chicago) with BOs 'mentor' - on communist propaganda.



You need a new schtick.....you're responses are making you sound like a broken record and worse.

This thread is all kinds of





compeater opeator
PeaNut

PeaNut 376,677
May 2008
Posts: 422
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/10/2013 8:34:16 AM

It isn't a rhetorical question. You have to be more specific than just using "assault weapon" because that term is a political one made up which does not define any real firearms. People who use that terminology are either politicians posturing to make it sound like they are really trying to do something or they are citizens who believe those politicians and don't have any real gun knowledge. Any weapon used to assault another person can be defined as an assault weapon- so if you use a baseball bat to purposefully assault someone, the bat becomes the assault weapon. My advice is to go read up and watch many videos on guns and gun use. YouTube has all kinds of safety and firearm testing vides that would give you a better understanding of different types nod styles of guns and ammunition. Understand for yourself the real terms and definitions and decide which ones you think ought to be banned so that you ave a more clear an real argument


Well since this is a message board conversation where I was offering a general opinion about whether there should be some regulations for personal guns laws - that it was not an all or nothing type situation. I did not think that I was being asked for specific weapons that should be include. Instead I thought I was giving an opinion that most people were not saying that people should not be allowed to have guns, but that some types should be regulated. That I did not think that to do so was stomping on our rights as American citizens.

I think that you are not obtuse enough to think that I am talking about baseball bats or that any I don't realize that any weapon can be considered an assault weapon. If you can not follow my comments because of the verbage that I used, I apologize. Just ignore my comments and move on to those that you can understand.

Man it took me long enough to type that response, I commend those of you who can produce long detailed post time after time. My internet message board skills stink and I also truly believe that most readers really don't care.

When there are actual changes being inacted and the discussion has changed from the general to the specifics of what should be included then I will be happy to give more information. By that time I am sure I can "understand for myself" the real terms and definitions to satisfy you so that I can have a real argument. I'll get right on YouTube so that I can prepare. You really know nothing about what I know or don't know from that post - just as I don't know all there is to know about you from your post. However, just as you have obviously come to your own conclusions so have I. Free thought is a wonderful thing.

ilovecookies
PeaFixture

PeaNut 506,197
April 2011
Posts: 3,298
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/10/2013 8:45:39 AM

I'm both a student of history and fully support gun registration. I don't subscribe to the bunker mentality that if the government knows I have a gun they will try to take it away.


ITA. Paranoia and fear mongering is destroying this country.

~*kristina*~
Typical Liberal Pea

PeaNut 55,230
November 2002
Posts: 18,604
Layouts: 106
Loc: Fly Over Country

Posted: 1/10/2013 9:08:51 AM

Perhaps one of the things that irks me most about 2peas is the posters who seem incapable of lending anything of substance to a conversation, and yet will poke their head into a thread just long enough to tell the rest of us we are crazy. Nice.
I don't have anyone on ignore. Makes it too difficult to follow threads when you're clueless as to what people are responding to. But, there are some who certainly make it a tempting option.


Get over it. YOU don't get to decide what people post or comment about on any thread and personally I don't care what irks you. There are a lot of things that I read on this board that irk me, but I usually just move on, sometimes (see previous post) I comment on what irks me. You seem incapable of doing that with me without throwing your own kind of barb (it's not the first time). I posted what I thought of this thread....you don't agree....fine, great....move on.






lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?

PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,800
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio

Posted: 1/10/2013 9:12:43 AM
"ITA. Paranoia and fear mongering is destroying this country."
--------

Well I respectfully disagree. Complacency, ignorance of human nature and history, political correctness and a blind trust of government is killing this country.





"We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts... Self-government means self-reliance." Calvin Coolidge

Lynlam, the second-tier Pea, paid (except it appears she is not) political shill.
Uploaded with iPhone client

ePEAcenter
BucketHead

PeaNut 364,981
February 2008
Posts: 695
Layouts: 2
Loc: Texas Hill Country

Posted: 1/10/2013 9:13:05 AM

I wasn't arguing the pros or cons of a national registry. Merely asking how a militia that is intended for the security of a free state would regulate itself. Gun rights advocates are historically opposed to a national registry, and there may be practical reasons why, but I don't see a solid constitutional argument against it. Rather, it would seem that the second amendment allows for and even necessitates it. If a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, it begs the question, "Who is going to do the regulating?"


This is a pretty common view and in my personal opinion, and in the opinion of the Supreme Court, it is based on a misinterpretation of the Second Amendment when it is taken out of context of the entire document.

The amendments were added to the Constitution to secure adoption by the States, because the states desired additional clarification and limitation placed on the original text, i.e. they wanted to further restrict potential federal power prior to accepting the document - the amendments are there specifically to restrain power. The complete initial amendments weren't adopted officially until the end of 1791.

The Second Amendment is included to constrain the concept of "militia." The militia is defined in the original document in Art 1, Section 8, Clause 15 where Congress is granted authority, "To provide for the calling forth the militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions." In Clause 16, Congress will, "provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

And finally in Article 2, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

So, the militia is clearly defined as an organized state militia under the power of the federal government, if warranted. So, how did the amendment intend to limit that power or limit the militia? They framed the Second Amendment to 'regulate' that militia.

When read in this context:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Clearly references the earlier text on the militia and restricts that federal power by clearly excepting and specifying that the militia must be well regulated and that, in particular, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It is clear that it is the militia that is called for regulation and it is the people's right to 'bear arms' which shall not be infringed by that militia.

I don't expect this more full reading of the document to change anyone's mind regarding gun control, but I do hope that some take the time to delve more deeply into the framing of our nation's Constitution before supporting an attempt to circumvent it.

lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?

PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,800
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio

Posted: 1/10/2013 9:20:25 AM
"I know I will be called out for not comparing apples to apples. But I do think that there is a correlation in that no one is trying to take away anyone's right to own guns..just that we need to have reasonable regulations and restrictions to protect our citizens...all of our citizens,"
------------

So....who defines "reasonable"? Because I am pretty sure your idea of what is reasonable will be vastly different from mine. So therein lies our problem.

So I will then defer to the original document - "shall not be infringed". Period. That is reasonable. Anything else beyond what we already have is completely unreasonable and unconstitutional.

"

I have absolutely NO problem with having the weapons that were available 200 years ago legal and available for people to be running around America with. I DO have a problem with people running around America with the newer assualt type weapons that most citizens (other than military and law enforcement)have no need for."
------------

So, what would have happened it the colonists had only had spears and stones to use in their fight for independence against a tyrannical government army that had modern muskets? History would have taken a very different turn, don't you think? The founders placed the duty of protecting liberty not in the hands of the government, which they knew would eventually corrupt, but in the hands of WE THE PEOPLE. That is why we have the birth right protected by the 2nd amendment.





"We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts... Self-government means self-reliance." Calvin Coolidge

Lynlam, the second-tier Pea, paid (except it appears she is not) political shill.
Uploaded with iPhone client

smilesnpeacesigns
PeaFixture

PeaNut 341,236
October 2007
Posts: 3,689
Layouts: 3

Posted: 1/10/2013 9:23:12 AM
Ok I have to run get the mail so this may have been talked about before if so forgive me I'll delete when I get back.

Don't Dr. ask questions like
Do you have a swimming pool?
Are there guns in your home?
ETC.
When doing yearly check-ups? I seem to remember a thread that was about that? I didn't post on it, but any way maybe someone else knows what I am talking about TIA.

I'll finish reading when I get back.


Even with the snark, trolls and spelling police you are a great group of ladies!

I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,385
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 1/10/2013 9:50:51 AM
I can't believe I actually read all 4 pages....


I was just wigging out about reading this very thing. This would be impeachable behavior should it happen. We have a constitution that limits "executive orders" from infringing on the rights and liberties of law-abiding American citizens.


Why would you be 'wigging out'? I read that article, and nowhere in it did I see anyone announce the President was going to override the Constitution. As you point out, the Constitution limits Executive Orders anyway. It is beyond reason to imagine the President would try such a thing, unless he was mentally unbalanced, and we know he's not.



The National Registry is first. Then comes the next step: Confiscation.


Paranoid much?


it is what could happen could happen to this country should guns be taken away. Brush up on history of other countries before you call someone Nuts.


We are not an uncivilized country. We are not governed by a dictator. We have a First Amendment that guarantees we will always be able to speak out against the Government should it collectively lose its mind and disarming the Nation.


I am not ok with doctors being required to ask questions about guns or recording the answers in any way.


Doctors do ask questions about guns. I can guarantee you if I walk into my psychiatrist's office and tell him I've been thinking about killing myself, or my husband, one of the first questions out of his mouth will be 'Do you have a gun at home?'


What job requires regular polygraph tests?


My DH is a physicist, who spent 30 years designing weapons for the military. He took a polygraph exam every year for 30 years. The polygraph was to maintain his security clearance, but without the clearance, he would have been unemployed.

With regard to a National Registry for guns. I can think of one thing that may be a valid reason for having one. Let's say you have registered guns in your home, and they get stolen. 3 months later one of them is used by a criminal to commit a crime. Police recover the weapon and discover it's registered to you. Police come to your house and ask you if there's anyone you suspect may have stolen the weapons... you say yes, my *$@#*^ roommate/neighbor/BIL was probably the one who did it. Police go lean on your BIL who confesses he sold them to his friend Harry...etc etc etc. It may give law enforcement a place to start in tracking a violent offender.....just a thought.

Simply_Lovely
AncestralPea

PeaNut 463,295
April 2010
Posts: 4,172
Layouts: 3
Loc: New York City

Posted: 1/10/2013 10:03:20 AM

I don't care HOW gun violence decreases; I just care that it does.


Well, the best way to do that is instituting martial law and a total police state. I'm absolutely serious. Would you like that?

and FTR I am also pro-choice and I think we should end the so-called "war on drugs." At least the way it is being handled right now.

and Kudos to scrappower for being opposed to the potential EO measure. =)




Meow!

memecoop
PeaNut

PeaNut 542,227
February 2012
Posts: 104
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/10/2013 10:11:19 AM
Study history. This is exactly how Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Castro and their ilk were able to establish dictatorships and get rid of all the competition. History always repeats itself.
Uploaded with iPhone client

momofkandn
PeaAddict

PeaNut 159,041
July 2004
Posts: 1,079
Layouts: 0
Loc: Maryland

Posted: 1/10/2013 10:38:40 AM

With regard to a National Registry for guns. I can think of one thing that may be a valid reason for having one. Let's say you have registered guns in your home, and they get stolen. 3 months later one of them is used by a criminal to commit a crime. Police recover the weapon and discover it's registered to you. Police come to your house and ask you if there's anyone you suspect may have stolen the weapons... you say yes, my *$@#*^ roommate/neighbor/BIL was probably the one who did it. Police go lean on your BIL who confesses he sold them to his friend Harry...etc etc etc. It may give law enforcement a place to start in tracking a violent offender.....just a thought.


This is a good argument in favor of a registry. But the success would be dependent on the actual gun being found or left behind at the scene of the crime which is extremely rare. I'm not convinced to enact such a huge law, which by the way would be incredibly difficult and costly to enforce, for such a small gain.

I'm open to the idea of a registry. As I've said before, I don't have the fear that registry automatically leads to confiscation. But I haven't been convinced yet of its usefulness in preventing crime. And the logistics and cost of maintaining and enforcing the registry on a national level seem prohibitive. If we take this on, I want to make sure its for a very good reason and the results actually reduce crime.

As far as physicians asking about guns in the house, again, I have no problem with them asking. But what really can be done with the information? The physician can counsel the parents but that's all they can do. The simple presence of guns in the house is not a good enough reason to remove a child from their parents' care. We'd have to get very specific as to what constitutes a real danger to a child if we were to enact any law that would prohibit the ownership of guns in a house where a child is present. My father owned a gun. It was in a locked box in his closet and there was no ammunition in the house. I never saw him use the thing. It was a gift when he retired from the National Guard. Should CPS have forced him to remove that gun from the house or removed me from his care? Of course not. But who decides what is truly a danger? I am sure many children that live on ranches in Montana are around and may even use guns every day. Are they in some danger that a physician should report the parents to CPS when they answer the question affirmatively that there are guns in the house. I've seen the statistics and I know how many kids are killed by guns. My heart breaks for them and their families. And I really want to see those deaths decrease if not end altogether. But in many metropolitan areas, gang related activity is the largest cause for gun deaths in kids. A physician asking about a gun in the house isn't going to solve that problem.

My intention isn't be Debbie Downer here and defend the 2nd amendment no matter what. My intention is find real solutions that prevent another Adam Lanza from going over the edge, having the desire to kill, having access to the gun and then perpetrating the crime. I'm discouraged that I haven't seen more real solutions. But I do agree with those that are saying the problem is very complex and no single law (including gun laws) will prevent further tragedies.

Cutesuzyq
BucketHead

PeaNut 96,863
July 2003
Posts: 969
Layouts: 6
Loc: Lost in the Land of Confusion..

Posted: 1/10/2013 10:39:51 AM
I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised that he would even contemplate this kind of thing!!


I don't care HOW gun violence decreases; I just care that it does.


The problem with this thought is that if a criminal will find a way to get one regardless of what the law says. Then you run into the issue of only criminals having guns while the law abiding citizens will be at the mercy of those criminals with no way to protect themselves.


Suzanne
Wife, Mom, Book Lover, Crafter, and Red belt in Mixed Martial Arts

"Wear fabulous underwear even if you are the only to see them"

Nikon D80
AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 VR
50mm F/1.8

My Blog: Day to Day

Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,912
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County

Posted: 1/10/2013 10:41:51 AM

The problem with this thought is that if a criminal will find a way to get one regardless of what the law says. Then you run into the issue of only criminals having guns while the law abiding citizens will be at the mercy of those criminals with no way to protect themselves.




This arguement is getting old. What do you suggest we do then? Nothing?

FrenchToast
AncestralPea

PeaNut 3,015
February 2000
Posts: 4,585
Layouts: 19
Loc: Cinderella's Castle

Posted: 1/10/2013 10:58:12 AM
After reading all 4 pages, I'll have to agree with this



ITA. Paranoia and fear mongering is destroying this country.





wren*walk
PeaAddict

PeaNut 481,431
September 2010
Posts: 1,822
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/10/2013 11:25:42 AM

Rather than assuming that all the obstacles can be overcome and trying to sound reasonable by saying "I think a gun registry is a great idea we can all agree on!" we should be saying "how does a gun registry solve the problem of people with mental issues having access to guns?" and if there is not a clear compelling answer, move on to something that does and spend our energy and thought processes there.





Well you have to start by identifying the problem in order to ask the right question. "How does a gun resistry solve the problem of people with MI having access to guns" is not the right question imo.

The root problem is the ease of access to guns. And that problem is related to the proliferation of guns. And that problem is magnified by the enhanced lethality of moderns firearms.

People with mental illness are not the only perpetrators of deaths with guns. And I don't have stats, but I would hazard a guess that outside of suicides, they are not even the majority of those perpetrators.

Moreover, mentall illness is not the only causal factor behind guns being the second largest cause of death among children and young people in those stats I provided earlier. Again, it is proliferation of and more importantly, the EASE of ACCESS to guns.

And I'm not even arguing that a gun registry would solve or ameliorate that either. What I am saying is, THAT is the problem. That is the only factor in this that is conducive to real and meaningful change. Because you aren't going to change the fact that some people will become mentally ill or snap or simply commit crimes. And you certainly can't predict it.













PunchPrincess

PeaNut 17,063
June 2001
Posts: 12,706
Layouts: 0
Loc: where 71 and 70 meet

Posted: 1/10/2013 11:29:26 AM
Many posters have said that the Second Amendment in context should allow for anyone registered as a militia member -- I suppose that would include the National guard, police force, etc -- should be able to buy a weapon themselves -- cool way to move that cost off the public coffers and onto the citizens.

Just so we understand we are talking about weapons available in the 18th century, let's consider other items known in the 18th century -- tobacco and whiskey among other spirits. Why didn't the founding fathers include this amendment -- "A well regulated public house, being necessary to the happiness of a free State, the right of the people to distill their spirits and grow tobacco, shall not be infringed." Simple words, right. And if they had done so, two hundred years of licensing of alcohol and smokes would never have happened.

But we know that ingesting spirits and smoking tobacco does cause bodily harm. And so, we license those products and regulate them. Just think, if my Spirits and Smokes amendment had been passed, we could be willy-nilly smoking and drinking ourselves to death just like we shoot up schools. This doesn't even fall into the realm of unintended consequences, does it? In order to prevent a possible future confiscation of deadly weapons, we have decided that we must suffer the following

In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm. There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000. Just over half of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with 17,352 (55.6% ) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 suicide deaths, and 12,632 (40.5% ) homicide deaths. Some suicides are committed after the perpetrator has committed one or more murders.
from Wikipedia.

If you think that these numbers justify your right to own a weapon that shoots many times the bullets that an 18th century musket could fire, I offer you this viewpoint

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Those 27 words were written in 1791 as the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. At that time the most advanced weapon a farmer, hunter or traveler in the 13 states owned was a musket. It was a fairly inaccurate weapon and slow to load. A crack military unit could fire off five shots in a minute. An average joe would be lucky to fire twice in a minute.
Last Friday, 26 people, mostly children, were killed in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. The madman who committed this horror was carrying three weapons: two 9-mm handguns and a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic rifle, which, according to published reports, was the main weapon used in the shootings.
Bushmaster's website says the weapon comes with a magazine that holds 30 rounds. Additional magazines can be purchased for $12.30. But, as a semi-automatic rifle, the Bushmaster will fire a bullet each time you pull the trigger. That means a 30-round magazine probably can be used up in less that 30 seconds.
So chances are the gunman was able to shoot hundreds of rounds in the 10 minutes or so his rampage lasted. According to published reports, many of the victims were shot several times.
When the Second Amendment was written, it would have taken a small army to commit the atrocities committed by one man last Friday. It's time to have laws that reflect the conditions of the world of the 21st century.


Read more: Sitting in: Twenty-seven words; 26 lives - Danvers, MA - Danvers Herald http://www.wickedlocal.com/danvers/newsnow/x65617842/Sitting-in-Twenty-seven-words-26-lives#ixzz2Havy9pv4


<*********************************************************************>

PunchPrincess ( def. A long, long time ago when I first started scrapping I discovered punches -- round, square, squiggles, cars, etc. You name it. Like coat hangers they multiplied, under the bed I think until they were threatening to take over that precious space that we all covet and refuse to cede to other family members. Thus I became PunchPrincess. )


*Steffie*
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 375,761
May 2008
Posts: 2,974
Layouts: 26
Loc: Northern Ohio

Posted: 1/10/2013 11:39:35 AM
Aslan, I was just going to post the same thing. "if you aren't with us, you are crazy" BS as usual.

momofkandn
PeaAddict

PeaNut 159,041
July 2004
Posts: 1,079
Layouts: 0
Loc: Maryland

Posted: 1/10/2013 11:39:57 AM

What do you do when someone you care about is saying things that indicate a loss of touch with reality and a bent toward violence? What do you do when this person is in a home with unsecured firearms and ammo? What do you do when everything about his screams Dylan Kleibold to you, but his parents refuse to even consider that he might be a threat to himself or others? What do you do? Wait and worry and hope to God he doesn't do anything?


Aslan, I honestly don't know the answer to these questions. There are no laws on the books presently that would immediately relieve this situation. And there are very good reasons for the absence of those laws.

We decided long ago that involuntary commitment stripped away a person's rights. So it is very, very, very difficult to commit someone now against their will. And it should be. Do you really want to change that?

There are no current laws regarding the ownership of guns in a home with someone that is "mentally unstable". Maybe we enact laws regarding that. But there are two serious issues with this. One is, who decides who is unstable? We've been told by the psychiatric community that predicting who will snap and commit violence is nearly impossible. To say nothing of those that are not under a physicians care at all. The second is a violation of HIPAA. If I am an adult, others that live in my house have no right to know my medical diagnosis. Do we really want to change that? Your specific example seems pretty clear cut. This person is obviously dangerous. But when enacting laws we have to face the reality that most cases are not obvious and attempting to legislate a subjective perceived "threat" is dangerous to everyone's civil rights.

In your case, I think we rely on laws that can be enforced. For example, if this person were ever to be abusive to an animal, report it. If this person ever threatens you verbally or assaults you in any way, report it. If this person calls you and threatens to commit suicide, call 911 immediately Reporting these things doesn't guarantee that the person will never perpetrate a crime like Lanza did. But maybe it will. And at the very least, it does begin the process of creating a record that might be used later to commit him.

lovetodigi
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 257,022
April 2006
Posts: 8,640
Layouts: 5
Loc: USA

Posted: 1/10/2013 11:44:05 AM
Well said PunchPrincess!




Sony a77
Sony 18-70mm F3.5/5.6, Sony 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6,
Sony 50mm 1.8, Sony DT 35mm f/1.8 SAM
Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di 1:1 AF Macro AF
Tamron 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 AF Zoom with Macro
MacBook Pro 15" (Mid 2012)
Photoshop CS6 & PSE 11
Lightroom 4

PunchPrincess

PeaNut 17,063
June 2001
Posts: 12,706
Layouts: 0
Loc: where 71 and 70 meet

Posted: 1/10/2013 12:04:56 PM
Maybe this has already been mentioned but in answer to this

We decided long ago that involuntary commitment stripped away a person's rights. So it is very, very, very difficult to commit someone now against their will. And it should be. Do you really want to change that?
I offer this

Descriptive Note: This section contains examples of existing state statutory provisions on confinement of individuals with TB in a facility (also referred to as commitment, involuntary hospitalization, or isolation). Confinement in a facility is generally considered to be the most restrictive TB control measure, but may be necessary when less restrictive alternatives have failed and confinement is the only way to assure that the patient is adherent (and may be the only way to cure the patient of TB ) and the public's health is adequately protected. The provisions in this section were specifically chosen because they are reportedly effective in the jurisdictions in which they are in place. The first two bullets are provisions from high incidence jurisdictions (New York City/California [California's and NYC's laws on detention are identical] and Florida, respectively), and the third bullet is Wisconsin's confinement law, which was recently upheld by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in In re Washington, 735 N.W.2d 111 (Wis. 2007). See Appendix B for more information on state cases related to TB prevention and control.


So if Adam Lanza had had TB he would have been involuntarily committed, but since he only wanted to kill hundreds of people he couldn't be.


<*********************************************************************>

PunchPrincess ( def. A long, long time ago when I first started scrapping I discovered punches -- round, square, squiggles, cars, etc. You name it. Like coat hangers they multiplied, under the bed I think until they were threatening to take over that precious space that we all covet and refuse to cede to other family members. Thus I became PunchPrincess. )


momofkandn
PeaAddict

PeaNut 159,041
July 2004
Posts: 1,079
Layouts: 0
Loc: Maryland

Posted: 1/10/2013 12:12:37 PM

The root problem is the ease of access to guns.


I would agree with you. But then I think of places like Chicago and DC where gun laws are very restrictive. They went as far as the Supreme Court would let them in attempting to restrict the sale and ownership of guns. And yet, both cities still face serious gun violence issues despite the fact that ease of access has been greatly reduced. Chicago is much worse. But I think they can look to DC for ways to reduce the crime. In DC it wasn't the gun laws that reduced the homicide rate. It was the concerted effort of DC police and the ATF to get illegal guns off the street and reduce gang related crime. Keep in mind, these guns weren't illegal because of tough gun laws in DC. Many of the firearms couldn't have been purchased legally anywhere in the US. They are being used by criminals who are obtaining the weapons by illegal arms dealers. The years with the highest homicide rates in DC happened to have been years where handguns were illegal. They are now legal again, but homicide rates haven't gone back up. In DC there is no direct causation between gun laws and gun related homicides.

So let's consider this when thinking about Newtown. How do we reduce his ease of access? Enact a law where his mom isn't allowed to own a gun? We don't know he had a medical diagnosis that could be used in a law that would restrict her ownership just because he lived with her. And as I said before, this opens up huge violations of HIPAA. We could restrict what guns people are allowed to own like banning the AR-15 I guess. That might have reduced the number of people killed, but it would not have prevented him from doing exactly what the VA Tech shooter did and use multiple hand guns that could cause many deaths. We could enact a law that limits how many fire arms a person owns. But then we are back to the registry question and we are also back to the question of interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I'd have to hear it from a constitutional expert that a national registry is constitutional before I could really support it. And as far as I understand, the Supreme Court upheld the right of individuals to own firearms while saying nothing about limitations of the number of firearms someone can own. A State will have to enact a law on that and someone will have to challenge it before the SCOTUS could rule and clarify that one.

PEAce sign
i'm not superstitious, but i am a little stitious.

PeaNut 274,722
August 2006
Posts: 13,477
Layouts: 0
Loc: OH-IO!

Posted: 1/10/2013 12:13:41 PM
good. i'm glad. nothing done to date has worked so far, so he has my blessing.

i haven't read this entire thread but want to say that it baffles my mind that the NRA can't just consent to banning assault type weapons.

after that, then let's talk about how much ammunition is enough. how many guns are enough. what sort of background checks are enough. what punishment is strong enough.

after that, let's talk about the gun/violence culture. music, video games, boys without fathers, gangs, whatever you want to call it. and immediate gratification. and how people don't know how to stop, reason, listen, compromise anymore. they just grab a gun and shoot someone.

after that, let's talk about mental health.

i have had enough of this.


AngelKriC
It's football time in TENNESSEE!

PeaNut 215,522
July 2005
Posts: 19,962
Layouts: 34
Loc: Big Orange Country!

Posted: 1/10/2013 12:29:55 PM

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Those 27 words were written in 1791 as the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. At that time the most advanced weapon a farmer, hunter or traveler in the 13 states owned was a musket. It was a fairly inaccurate weapon and slow to load. A crack military unit could fire off five shots in a minute. An average joe would be lucky to fire twice in a minute.
Last Friday, 26 people, mostly children, were killed in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. The madman who committed this horror was carrying three weapons: two 9-mm handguns and a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic rifle, which, according to published reports, was the main weapon used in the shootings.
Bushmaster's website says the weapon comes with a magazine that holds 30 rounds. Additional magazines can be purchased for $12.30. But, as a semi-automatic rifle, the Bushmaster will fire a bullet each time you pull the trigger. That means a 30-round magazine probably can be used up in less that 30 seconds.
So chances are the gunman was able to shoot hundreds of rounds in the 10 minutes or so his rampage lasted. According to published reports, many of the victims were shot several times.
When the Second Amendment was written, it would have taken a small army to commit the atrocities committed by one man last Friday. It's time to have laws that reflect the conditions of the world of the 21st century.


Read more: Sitting in: Twenty-seven words; 26 lives - Danvers, MA - Danvers Herald http://www.wickedlocal.com/danvers/newsnow/x65617842/Sitting-in-Twenty-seven-words-26-lives#ixzz2Havy9pv4


BEAUTIFUL PunchPrincess! VERY well said! Standing 'O'!!! I have been saying this all along.


Krissy

"My husband said it was the scrapbooking or him, so I took some pictures of him packing and made the cutest pages ever!"

momofkandn
PeaAddict

PeaNut 159,041
July 2004
Posts: 1,079
Layouts: 0
Loc: Maryland

Posted: 1/10/2013 12:38:17 PM

So if Adam Lanza had had TB he would have been involuntarily committed, but since he only wanted to kill hundreds of people he couldn't be.


Bringing up commitment for a communicable disease is a total non-sequiter but I'll respond anyway. Yes, someone can be quarantined (which I don't see the same as commitment in a metal health facility) if they have a communicable disease that is an immediate danger to the community. It is also directly life threatening to the person with the disease and can be "cured" without the willing participation of the patient.

Those with mental health issues can be committed involuntarily if a judge determines there is an immediate threat to their own health and safety (i.e attempting suicide). We don't know if Lanza exhibited behavior that satisfied an immediate threat in the eyes of the law. Nor do we know that he expressed his desire to kill to any one. Right now we don't know if he could have been seen as an immediate danger to the community in the same way as diagnosing him with TB would have been.

Simply_Lovely
AncestralPea

PeaNut 463,295
April 2010
Posts: 4,172
Layouts: 3
Loc: New York City

Posted: 1/10/2013 12:53:18 PM

haven't read this entire thread but want to say that it baffles my mind that the NRA can't just consent to banning assault type weapons.

after that, then let's talk about how much ammunition is enough. how many guns are enough. what sort of background checks are enough. what punishment is strong enough.

after that, let's talk about the gun/violence culture. music, video games, boys without fathers, gangs, whatever you want to call it. and immediate gratification. and how people don't know how to stop, reason, listen, compromise anymore. they just grab a gun and shoot someone.

after that, let's talk about mental health.

i have had enough of this.


And I think that the order of actions you listed should be completely reversed in order to be effective!! And herein lies the difference and why we can't compromise. We want the same things, we just want them done in different order.

And what baffles me is that people still continue to say "let's ban assault weapons" without knowing what that even is.




Meow!

mapchic
Top Tier Pea

PeaNut 31,157
February 2002
Posts: 12,615
Layouts: 55
Loc: Chicagoland

Posted: 1/10/2013 1:07:08 PM

The statistics that you could not access on the other page are linked again below.
Thanks for relinking!

I note that those statistics cover ages 1-24. Not just children. It includes adults. I would be interested in what the statistics look like for only 1-16 or 1-18.


So if you are really trying to suggest that you or anyone else without the requisite qualifications gets to have a say on what doctors do or do not do in the realm of public health, I'm afraid I have to not only strongly disagree but actually laugh out loud at your hubris.
You can laugh out loud at what you assumed was my hubris... but I wasn't saying that. I was saying that I think it's a bad idea for the government to mandate that doctors must ask questions about guns and record those answers.

I DO think that mental health providers should ask those questions and be able to act on the information. As I said in the suggestions for changes in gun laws I posted on that really long thread last month I think that a serious problem is the lack of communication between mental health providers and the NICS system. The Virginia Tech killer for example should not have been able to buy guns because of a history of court mandated mental health treatment. However there was no way for the seller to know that.

Last night I was talking about this to a friend who is a doctor (pediatric hospitalist) here in Chicago at a hospital that receives many children who are the victims of gun violence. I asked what he thought of this issue. He said that in his experience the problem isn't guns in the home... it's guns on the street. Either way, those guns are always illegal in Chicago and so no patient would ever tell him if they had them.




I'm never going to understand the passion to defend the AR-15.
I'm never going to understand the passion to demonize the AR-15.


I don't get it. I don't get the whole "you know it's not an assault weapon" points.
The term 'assault weapon' is a political construct with no actual meaning. What do you mean when you talk about an assault weapon?


I don't get the "it's the same as every other gun" comments.
What do you think makes it different than any other gun? It shoots one bullet per pull of the trigger - just like any other gun. There are smaller guns and larger guns. It is really a very middle of the road gun.


What does it do better than the other guns?
It is a nice, well engineered, dependable gun. Low recoil, adjustable to suit different users with different needs.


I personally know it's not a better hunting gun.
Depends on what you are hunting. Rabbits and other small game it's a great gun. Larger game (deer and the like) it is to low powered and you need a larger, more powerful gun.


I wouldn't think it's a better protection gun...someone is breaking in your front door & you're gonna grab your AR-15...I wouldn't think that's a gun that you have hanging above the mantel. I would assume the type of person who has guns for protection is a responsible citizen & that kind of gun would be locked up with ammunition also locked up...so no way to really get that...plus the chance of hitting someone else or shooting holes into your neighbors house would just be too risky.
Actually, many find it to be a very good gun for home protection. One advantage of the relatively underpowered .223 round is that it is far less likely to punch through walls and shoot holes into the neighbors house (particularly if you use frangible rounds). Because of the relatively low recoil it is easier to handle and the flexibility of the platform means you can configure it in a way that fits your body best. It's also a fun gun to target shoot with... and the gun you are most practiced and comfortable with is the gun you should use for home defense. Many people have better aim with a rifle than with a handgun so they prefer a rifle for home defense.

I don't think anyone is going to get the gun from over the mantle for home defense. In my experience guns used for decoration are usually historical guns which could not really be depended on in a crisis situation.


Are the AR-15s completely off the table to discuss...or is it just that they are being discussed wrong that is bothering the defenders of these guns so much?
It is that they are being discussed wrong. That is frustrating. It's just that the demonization of the AR-15 is kind of pointless. It feels like people who don't know about guns or care about guns are uninterested in doing the research to understand what they are trying to control.


I personally think no one needs those guns, I could be convinced that citizens have the right to have them, if those citizens agreed to jump through many hoops to prove they were responsible & the people they lived with our responsible. In fact, I feel that way for all guns I guess.
You may not need an AR-15 but millions of Americans obviously feel differently. They have bought them and own them safely and responsibly. Why do you want to punish them?



Here is a thought experiment...

Imagine if the response to child pornography was a call to ban all cameras in order to protect children. Crazy right? So then what should be done to protect the children? Pass a law that in order to own a digital camera one would have to jump through hoops, prove they had the had 'good reason' to own a camera and pay all sorts of taxes and fees. There would of course be tons of push back from businesses and individuals who need and want cameras for a bunch of reasons.


Ok, then imagine that the media reported a couple of child pornographers were found to be using a Canon Rebel and so the call was specifically to outlaw Canon Rebels. It's just silly because it doesn't really do anything that lots of other cameras do, and it isn't a particularly fancy or high powered camera. It is really 'middle of the road'.

There are millions and millions of people who use their Canon Rebel camera for totally legal purposes... why punish them for the crimes of others?

In many ways the AR-15 is kind of like the Canon Rebel of guns. It is fairly middle of the road. Not particularly powerful, not small, a nice enough gun that it is a 'step up' when you get it but it is hardly 'top of the line'.











"When someone asks you 'think about what Jesus would do', remember that a valid option is to freak out and turn over tables" -- Unknown

“I am a Roman Catholic - the one true faith, (the Microsoft of Christianity) and I know Roman Catholicism is the one true faith because Roman Catholicism tells me it’s the one true faith... And if you remember from earlier in this sentence Roman Catholicism is the one true faith – so how could it be wrong?” ~ Stephen Colbert ‘The Word’ 11-28-06

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit

PEAce sign
i'm not superstitious, but i am a little stitious.

PeaNut 274,722
August 2006
Posts: 13,477
Layouts: 0
Loc: OH-IO!

Posted: 1/10/2013 1:17:52 PM

And I think that the order of actions you listed should be completely reversed in order to be effective!! And herein lies the difference and why we can't compromise. We want the same things, we just want them done in different order.



my order was just random as i was thinking. i can agree to reverse them. and compromise.

Simply_Lovely
AncestralPea

PeaNut 463,295
April 2010
Posts: 4,172
Layouts: 3
Loc: New York City

Posted: 1/10/2013 1:25:20 PM

my order was just random as i was thinking. i can agree to reverse them. and compromise.


I wish Congress would do the same as what we did.




Meow!

mom2ja2
PeaAddict

PeaNut 120,889
December 2003
Posts: 1,817
Layouts: 5
Loc: Indiana

Posted: 1/10/2013 2:37:06 PM

Here is a thought experiment...

Imagine if the response to child pornography was a call to ban all cameras in order to protect children. Crazy right? So then what should be done to protect the children? Pass a law that in order to own a digital camera one would have to jump through hoops, prove they had the had 'good reason' to own a camera and pay all sorts of taxes and fees. There would of course be tons of push back from businesses and individuals who need and want cameras for a bunch of reasons.


Ok, then imagine that the media reported a couple of child pornographers were found to be using a Canon Rebel and so the call was specifically to outlaw Canon Rebels. It's just silly because it doesn't really do anything that lots of other cameras do, and it isn't a particularly fancy or high powered camera. It is really 'middle of the road'.

There are millions and millions of people who use their Canon Rebel camera for totally legal purposes... why punish them for the crimes of others?

In many ways the AR-15 is kind of like the Canon Rebel of guns. It is fairly middle of the road. Not particularly powerful, not small, a nice enough gun that it is a 'step up' when you get it but it is hardly 'top of the line'.




OKay. I'm gonna address this first, because that was a pretty long post.

Dude. Let's not say child pornography, okay? It's a horrific crime, for sure, but most often, victims of this crime survive. They go on to marry, have kids, lead the charge for reform against such crimes that were committed against them. We can't do that. We can't make comparisons that make us feel better. These people are being killed.

If we're gonna make the comparison, we have to pretend people are actually KILLING people with these rebels.

And I appreciate you taking the time to put it in terms that you think everyone can relate to.

But, I can assure you, that if in the past several years we sent our loved ones off to innocent places like parks, schools, movies, malls, grocery stores...only to have them be hunted and slaughtered with cannon rebels?

And those cannon rebel shooters were almost always 40 something moms?

And it was determined that keeping these people safe meant EITHER giving up my rebel OR agreeing to yearly tests to prove that I was a responsible rebel user, and that I didn't live with anyone high risk who might take my rebel & use it to hunt & slaughter people

Take my rebel.

It would be a pain in the ass to go back to a film camera, sure. It's not as quick or easy. No instant gratification.

But the pictures are still great. Totally gets the job done.

My right to own a camera that's cool, quick, easy to use, and takes great pictures ENDS at the right of my fellow Americans being allowed to go about their daily lives without being hunted down & killed.


**********************************************************
One sees clearly only with the heart. Anything essential is invisible to the eyes. (the little prince)
**********************************************************
Mom to 3 great kids!

I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,385
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 1/10/2013 2:38:26 PM

Neither is Australia, New Zealand, the UK. Yet each of those countries used "the list" to facilitate confiscation.


I can only speak to personal experience with gun laws in NZ. NZ has always had strong gun laws, limiting the types of guns that a private citizen could legally own.

In the early 70s they made it illegal for the citizenry to own hand guns for personal protection, and required they be turned in. Since it was against the law to own them, I'm sure they did use the registry to round them up. I have no problem with that, and the vast majority of NZ citizens didn't either.

That is not to say they rounded up every gun in the entire country. You can own hunting rifles, antique collectors pistols, not sure what else. There is not a huge black market for hand guns in NZ, most people don't even think about them, let alone wonder where they can get one.

I believe when Britain instituted their gun laws, the process went pretty much the same way. Mostly voluntary and with the support of the majority.

I don't believe either of those countries has fallen apart, nor been taken over by a dictator. The people do not feel spied upon, nor that their rights have been infringed to any great degree.

While we have a Constitution that allows us to own weapons, the very same Constitution has safeguards built in to ensure that tyranny does not prevail.

ePEAcenter
BucketHead

PeaNut 364,981
February 2008
Posts: 695
Layouts: 2
Loc: Texas Hill Country

Posted: 1/10/2013 2:45:54 PM

If we're gonna make the comparison, we have to pretend people are actually KILLING people with these rebels.


OK then, how about fertilizer, is that deadly enough? 168 dead, including 19 children. 680 injured. 324 buildings damaged in a sixteen block radius. Oklahoma City bombing. Using retail fertilizer.

No one's calling for a ban on fertilizer. Because that would just be unreasonable.

mom2ja2
PeaAddict

PeaNut 120,889
December 2003
Posts: 1,817
Layouts: 5
Loc: Indiana

Posted: 1/10/2013 3:14:15 PM

I'm never going to understand the passion to defend the AR-15.

I'm never going to understand the passion to demonize the AR-15.



It's because these weapons are often used in crimes to hunt people. They were designed for it. They were made for soldiers to use in Vietnam. They're designed to kill people quickly...we surely agree on that.


I don't get it. I don't get the whole "you know it's not an assault weapon" points.

The term 'assault weapon' is a political construct with no actual meaning. What do you mean when you talk about an assault weapon?


I mean a semi automatic firearm that possesses features similar to military firearms.


I don't get the "it's the same as every other gun" comments.

What do you think makes it different than any other gun? It shoots one bullet per pull of the trigger - just like any other gun. There are smaller guns and larger guns. It is really a very middle of the road gun.


I think it's designed to look bad ass. I think it's the weapon of choice in crimes like these. It was designed for use in the military for killing people.


What does it do better than the other guns?

It is a nice, well engineered, dependable gun. Low recoil, adjustable to suit different users with different needs.


Of course, it's supposed to do all that because it was designed for soldiers.


I personally know it's not a better hunting gun.

Depends on what you are hunting. Rabbits and other small game it's a great gun. Larger game (deer and the like) it is to low powered and you need a larger, more powerful gun.


Rabbit hunting?

Okay. Fine. If there are scores of Americans who will starve because they can't bag bunnies with a bushmaster then I suppose that's a legitimate problem. But, why would they be unwilling to take yearly tests to prove that they, and everyone in their household are mentally sound & that the only intended use of their weapon is indeed bunny rabbits?




I wouldn't think it's a better protection gun...someone is breaking in your front door & you're gonna grab your AR-15...I wouldn't think that's a gun that you have hanging above the mantel. I would assume the type of person who has guns for protection is a responsible citizen & that kind of gun would be locked up with ammunition also locked up...so no way to really get that...plus the chance of hitting someone else or shooting holes into your neighbors house would just be too risky.

Actually, many find it to be a very good gun for home protection. One advantage of the relatively underpowered .223 round is that it is far less likely to punch through walls and shoot holes into the neighbors house (particularly if you use frangible rounds). Because of the relatively low recoil it is easier to handle and the flexibility of the platform means you can configure it in a way that fits your body best. It's also a fun gun to target shoot with... and the gun you are most practiced and comfortable with is the gun you should use for home defense. Many people have better aim with a rifle than with a handgun so they prefer a rifle for home defense.

I don't think anyone is going to get the gun from over the mantle for home defense. In my experience guns used for decoration are usually historical guns which could not really be depended on in a crisis situation.



I was being tongue & cheek with the mantel thing. What I guess I should have more clearly stated, is that I would think a responsible gun owner isn't going to have an AR-15 sitting on his night stand in the middle of the night when a bad guy is trying to break in. It's going to be locked up, in a safe place. He's not going to be able to get to it. He'll probably have a different gun for protection purposes...something smaller that is more accessible.

(Sorry I said he, I know plenty of women who own hand guns for protection.)


Are the AR-15s completely off the table to discuss...or is it just that they are being discussed wrong that is bothering the defenders of these guns so much?

It is that they are being discussed wrong. That is frustrating. It's just that the demonization of the AR-15 is kind of pointless. It feels like people who don't know about guns or care about guns are uninterested in doing the research to understand what they are trying to control.


These are the guns that are used. They are scary people killing loved ones & they are using scary guns. Of course we're going to talk about these guns. And the refusal to talk about them is EQUALLY frustrating. They have to be a part of the conversation.


I personally think no one needs those guns, I could be convinced that citizens have the right to have them, if those citizens agreed to jump through many hoops to prove they were responsible & the people they lived with our responsible. In fact, I feel that way for all guns I guess.

You may not need an AR-15 but millions of Americans obviously feel differently. They have bought them and own them safely and responsibly. Why do you want to punish them?



No. I think millions of Americans *want* them. I don't think they need them.

Furthermore, I don't think we're giving these Americans much credit.

I think the majority would step up & say yes, I *want* it, I don't *need* it.

I think these people will acknowledge that sometimes the few ruin things for the many. And in order to keep the rights of the many we sometimes have to do things to protect others, due to the actions of a few.

We do this for our countrymen all the time. We drive slower because speed limits are lowered, we smoke outside instead of in restaurants, we take off our shoes at the airport.

We have to talk about this. We have to make changes.

And a part of a discussion trying to prevent horrible tragedies that involve guns is going to involve a lot of things - violent video games - sure, violent movies, tv shows, okay - mental illness - absolutley...but we're gonna have to actually talk about the guns & the accessibility of them. Or else nothing will change. Will we even bother to be shocked after 10 more years of this? Will we even slow down to look at the pictures of the victims on People magazine?





**********************************************************
One sees clearly only with the heart. Anything essential is invisible to the eyes. (the little prince)
**********************************************************
Mom to 3 great kids!

mom2ja2
PeaAddict

PeaNut 120,889
December 2003
Posts: 1,817
Layouts: 5
Loc: Indiana

Posted: 1/10/2013 3:25:14 PM

OK then, how about fertilizer, is that deadly enough? 168 dead, including 19 children. 680 injured. 324 buildings damaged in a sixteen block radius. Oklahoma City bombing. Using retail fertilizer.

No one's calling for a ban on fertilizer. Because that would just be unreasonable.


Fertilizer?

If in August someone used fertilizer to kill those people in Colorado, and then they used it at Sandy Hook, and before that they used it against Gabby Gifford, and before that Columbine and so on and so on...

don't you think we'd be talking about fertilizer?

Are you unwilling to do anything? Are you unwilling to even have a conversation about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill?

Man, I don't get that. I can't imagine looking into the eyes of those parents who just buried their kids & saying "Well, see, nobody did anything about fertilizer so it's not fair."

eta - I thought Mapchic's comparison to a rebel was valid. It did it's job in illustrating that in some eyes, it's just fancy, has a few more tricks up it's sleeve...I thought her problem with logic was simply we can't say the rebel is being used just to victimize, to make it apples to apples we have to be using it to kill.

Throwing in fertilizer just seems so random to me. And I know I come across poorly & it's hard to have a reasonable conversation with someone when they're amped up....I just can't follow logic of "we can't solve this problem because once, this happened & we didn't solve it"

We should do our best to solve this problem. And, if it doesn't work, try something else...and when the next thing happens, work to fix that too.

On that note, I'm off to fix my hubby a birthday dinner.

Have a nice night, ya'll.



**********************************************************
One sees clearly only with the heart. Anything essential is invisible to the eyes. (the little prince)
**********************************************************
Mom to 3 great kids!

scrappower
Allons-y Alonso

PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 15,754
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/10/2013 3:40:10 PM

OK then, how about fertilizer, is that deadly enough? 168 dead, including 19 children. 680 injured. 324 buildings damaged in a sixteen block radius. Oklahoma City bombing. Using retail fertilizer.

No one's calling for a ban on fertilizer. Because that would just be unreasonable.



But they did sign a law into affect in 2011 regulating the sale of ammonium nitrate. It was signed into law by GWB.



jalapenette
PeaAddict

PeaNut 415,025
March 2009
Posts: 1,353
Layouts: 176
Loc: Southwest USA

Posted: 1/10/2013 3:43:05 PM
I guess it seems to me, just like the camera analogy:

the point is that if the Rebel camera can kill people, so can any other camera on the market. Take the rebel off the market, the killers will choose a different camera to kill with. So in order to actually stop people from killing with cameras, you would have to get rid of ALL cameras. And that's not fair to the responsible camera owners.

Same thing with the rifle- it may be the "weapon of choice" but it's not even the deadliest or "most dangerous". If it is eliminated, maybe one that is more deadly will be chosen. Or just a similar one. The gun itself does not have a mind of it's own, and it is not the reason people choose to kill. If they can't have access to a gun, maybe they will build a bomb instead. Heaven forbid. But mass killings using bombs is not unprecedented.


-Rachelle


*Mommy to Adam, born October 2010, and Tommy, July 2012*



Simply_Lovely
AncestralPea

PeaNut 463,295
April 2010
Posts: 4,172
Layouts: 3
Loc: New York City

Posted: 1/10/2013 3:56:34 PM

The problem with this thought is that if a criminal will find a way to get one regardless of what the law says. Then you run into the issue of only criminals having guns while the law abiding citizens will be at the mercy of those criminals with no way to protect themselves


This arguement is getting old. What do you suggest we do then? Nothing?




I don't know why I bother responding to you since you clearly either refuse to read or just have selective memory, but alas. What you do is DISARM THE CRIMINALS FIRST. Why is everything so extreme with you? Why do you not see the middle? Or at least the inbetween steps. It has bee explained ad nauseum in these threads and yet you continue to maintain that we want to do nothing. Actually, it's either your way or nothing. We want to do something, just not exactly your way. Saying these things is not a meaningful argument, it's just making random statements. And just because a valid argument keeps getting repeated doesn't make it old. Your refusal to even see the points of the other side (i'm not saying agree, but just see) is not productive and that to me is getting old.




Meow!
< 1 2 3 4 5 >
Show/Hide Icons . Show/Hide Signatures
Hide
{{ title }}
{{ icon }}
{{ body }}
{{ footer }}