Biden: Obama exploring executive orders to combat gun violence
Post ReplyPost New TopicPosted 1/9/2013 by *Steffie* in NSBR Board
< 1 2 3 4 5 >
 

jalapenette
BucketHead

PeaNut 415,025
March 2009
Posts: 1,151
Layouts: 137
Loc: Southwest USA

Posted: 1/10/2013 4:10:21 PM

what you do is DISARM THE CRIMINALS FIRST.


How? Haven't we done this already? Criminals cannot legally own guns. Obviously criminals have guns illegally. Are they just going to turn them in because we asked nicely?

This is the problem. We all want to disarm the criminals. We have laws in place to do so, but they aren't failproof. Also, people are innocent until proven guilty- and only after they got caught. We cannot take guns away from every potential criminal without taking guns away from everyone.

Even then, criminals would retain their guns.

I think everyone would agree that criminals shouldn't have guns. Taking the guns away from them is just so much easier said than done.


-Rachelle


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



lovetodigi
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 257,022
April 2006
Posts: 8,467
Layouts: 5
Loc: USA

Posted: 1/10/2013 4:17:51 PM

what you do is DISARM THE CRIMINALS FIRST.
One way to do that is to get anything but standard guns out of the gun shops. There have been two break ins of gun shops in this area in the past month. Lots of guns were stolen, including guns like the Bush Master. They are now in the hands of criminals. Had they not been in the gun shops to begin with, they would not not be in the hands of criminals. How many more are acquired by criminals breaking into homes and taking guns that are legally owned by the resident?




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

jalapenette
BucketHead

PeaNut 415,025
March 2009
Posts: 1,151
Layouts: 137
Loc: Southwest USA

Posted: 1/10/2013 4:23:03 PM

ne way to do that is to get anything but standard guns out of the gun shops.


I think it's fair to suggest that gun sales should be highly regulated, and people who sell guns need to protect their inventory. I'm not sure exactly what a "standard gun" is, because I'm not really that well-versed with guns. I am not a gun owner.

I do think business owners who sell guns need to be responsible for keeping them safe. They should have them better protected, so it is not so easy for criminals to break in and steal them. Seems like they should be locked in safes at night at least. The problem with that, of course, is it could possible put heavy burdens on the business owners as gun safes can be expensive and to have enough to store all your guns in could be a big expense.

Still, like the sale of alcohol, people who sell guns need to be responsible for making sure they do not get into the wrong hands.


-Rachelle


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



Simply_Lovely
AncestralPea

PeaNut 463,295
April 2010
Posts: 4,171
Layouts: 3
Loc: New York City

Posted: 1/10/2013 4:23:24 PM

How? Haven't we done this already? Criminals cannot legally own guns. Obviously criminals have guns illegally. Are they just going to turn them in because we asked nicely?


I would honestly be willing to temporarily suspend my 4th Am. right in favor of a huge coordinated gun sweep across the country. If that would yield a result then please search all the homes, I am ok with that.


One way to do that is to get anything but standard guns out of the gun shops. There have been two break ins of gun shops in this area in the past month. Lots of guns were stolen, including guns like the Bush Master. They are now in the hands of criminals. Had they not been in the gun shops to begin with, they would not not be in the hands of criminals. How many more are acquired by criminals breaking into homes and taking guns that are legally owned by the resident?


That is a very fair point. I agree that guns should not be sold in run-of-the-mill gun shops. But in very specifically designated, heavily guarded facilities. They should be as secure as banks, if not more.




Meow!

scrappower
Allons-y Alonso

PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 15,324
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/10/2013 4:25:58 PM
Well and another thing that needs to be done is that private gun sales need to be regulated somehow. In most states you can buy a gun from a private person with no background check at all. This is part of the gun show issue that has been brought up before. If they aren't a dealer it is legal most places.



jalapenette
BucketHead

PeaNut 415,025
March 2009
Posts: 1,151
Layouts: 137
Loc: Southwest USA

Posted: 1/10/2013 4:33:56 PM

Well and another thing that needs to be done is that private gun sales need to be regulated somehow. In most states you can buy a gun from a private person with no background check at all. This is part of the gun show issue that has been brought up before. If they aren't a dealer it is legal most places.



I would agree with this, too.

The idea of the government searching everyone's home is a very scary thought to me. You may be willing, but most of america is probably not.

Additionally, I doubt that they would find all the guns. Criminals would find creative places to hide them. Bury them in the woods. Obviously unless it was done very suddenly (which would be an even more horrible infringement of human rights) they would know it was happening and have time to hide their guns.


-Rachelle


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



Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,667
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County

Posted: 1/10/2013 4:38:16 PM

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.


I actually have been reading and so far all I'm seeing is why nothing can be done. You may think you are seeing solutions but I'm not.

I've been very careful about providing any solutions because I feel they should come from the gun owners themselves. Then maybe they would be enforced. I guess that is too much to hope for.

I ask questions. Like I don't have a problem addressing mental illness. But how can you tell if someone needs help. What would potential gun owners have to do to prove they aren't going to go nuts sometime down the road. So far no answers. It is a valid question. By the way, most of these mass murders were done with legally purchased guns. Including the one at Sandy Hook and the guy who killed the two firemen. I saw the spin put on by some that the guns were illegal but they were not.

Another valid question. Some people feel that violence in video games etc are also part of the problem. I said ok but why is it only in the US that this a problem, if it is? Other countries have access to the same video games as we do but yet it doesn't seem to bother them. Oh someone, I believe, said its because of our culture. Really? But that doesn't answer my other question. Mass murder and violence has been around a lot longer than violence in video games, tv, etc. Did you ever stop to think that the reason there is violence in video games etc is because it is a reflection of our society that existed long before the invention of said video games etc. That if there was no violence in the games etc we would still have the same amount of mass murders etc?

These are honest questions that no one seems to have the answers to other then its easier to make mental illness and the affects of violent video games etc the scapegoat when it comes to the issues of senseless killings of innocent people.

What is getting old is the same old excuses of why we have to have guns and hiding behind the 2nd amendment.

I see there was another shooting today at a high school.


mapchic
Top Tier Pea

PeaNut 31,157
February 2002
Posts: 12,607
Layouts: 55
Loc: Chicagoland

Posted: 1/10/2013 4:51:13 PM

get anything but standard guns out of the gun shops
What is a 'standard 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

PunchPrincess

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

Posted: 1/10/2013 5:33:02 PM
If I can password protect my iPhone to prevent someone from stealing and using it, what gun owner would object to having a mechanism which prevents a gun from being used unless the fingerprint of the user matches the fingerprint of the registered owner? Such a mechanism exists, but I haven't heard the NRA propose that it be made mandatory -- you would think they would be in favor of something that protects their your investment.

I'll let you all in on a secret -- the NRA is a lobby which represents the interests of the gun manufacturers. They will never be satisfied with the number of guns in this country because their interest is in the manufacture of more guns. The occasional movie shoot up or elementary school massacre is just a cost of doing business. IMO.


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

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. )


ilovecookies
PeaFixture

PeaNut 506,197
April 2011
Posts: 3,059
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/10/2013 5:42:14 PM

If I can password protect my iPhone to prevent someone from stealing and using it, what gun owner would object to having a mechanism which prevents a gun from being used unless the fingerprint of the user matches the fingerprint of the registered owner? Such a mechanism exists, but I haven't heard the NRA propose that it be made mandatory -- you would think they would be in favor of something that protects their your investment.



This!

I also agree about the NRA. Their refusal to listen to and consider reasonable solutions is mind boggling.

I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,376
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 1/10/2013 7:27:06 PM

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?



It might be silly, but that's exactly what happened when a terrorist tried to light a shoe bomb on a plane. Millions of people got punished by having to take their shoes off at the airport.

Other hijackers used box cutters, now you can't get near a plane with one. Same with containers of liquid, and dozens of other items. We are now subjected to invasive searches, our luggage is X-rayed, and/or opened and searched.

These are just few 'precautions' we have been subjected to since 9/11, and as I recall, everyone was saying 'hey, I'll give up a few liberties if it will keep us safe'

Then there's the Patriot's Act....all manner of liberties were taken from us with that....so why is it so hard to give up a few specific types of weapons of mass destruction (Assault rifles or whatever you want to call them....weapons that kill a lot of people quickly)

And the burning question I have is....where are all these criminals getting their illegal guns? Well, they either buy them at gun shows where no checks are made, or they steal them from legal gun owners. Surely we can tighten up on that free for all, to feel a little safer.

And another thing, that all this talk about gun registration has brought up, and I can't think of an answer for it...why do we have to register our cars, or prove we can drive one safely? I can buy a Lamborghini that does 160mph, but I'm not allowed to drive it that fast. We have all kinds of laws to modify our behavior in automobiles, so we don't kill people. Why can't we do that with weapons. Sure, people still die in car wrecks, and they will still die from gun shots, but why can't we modify our gun ownership, just like we do our vehicles?

tallydale
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 278,734
October 2006
Posts: 2,876
Layouts: 24
Loc: texas

Posted: 1/10/2013 7:33:29 PM
Dangit, STOP I-95! I want the government in my life less--not more! LOL

On a side note, guns and ammo are becoming scarce in Texas.





Skybar
Perfect Peaing

PeaNut 188,727
January 2005
Posts: 24,268
Layouts: 0
Loc: AZ desert

Posted: 1/10/2013 7:41:34 PM

like the sale of alcohol, people who sell guns need to be responsible for making sure they do not get into the wrong hands.

do you know of any stores that sell alcohol that lock it up in a SAFE during their closed hours?

how many of these mass shootings have been done by someone who legally owned the gun(s) used?


How is the DOJ doing on prosecuting violations of existing laws? I recently heard they were down 40% in them. IF that is true, what good would more laws do anyway?


BO will probably sign the treaty with the UN that gives THEM control over our guns.

There's much more in the 'oven' there.




"A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education."
- President Theodore Roosevelt

On June 28, 1787, as Governor of Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin hosted the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, where he moved:

"That henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning."

Franklin wrote April 17, 1787:

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

Benjamin Franklin wrote his epitaph:

"THE BODY of BENJAMIN FRANKLIN - Printer. Like the cover of an old book, Its contents torn out, And stripped of its lettering and gilding, Lies here, food for worms; Yet the work itself shall not be lost, For it will (as he believed) appear once more, In a new, And more beautiful edition, Corrected and amended By The AUTHOR."

scrappower
Allons-y Alonso

PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 15,324
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/10/2013 7:43:07 PM

BO will probably sign the treaty with the UN that gives THEM control over our guns.


Tinfoil hat anyone?



I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,376
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 1/10/2013 8:21:33 PM

Dangit, STOP I-95! I want the government in my life less--not more! LOL


I'm sorry. So would I, but if there's one thing this thread, and others like it has proved, is WE can't decide what to give up, and what to keep. I'm afraid we need the Govt. to step in and modify our behavior.

jalapenette
BucketHead

PeaNut 415,025
March 2009
Posts: 1,151
Layouts: 137
Loc: Southwest USA

Posted: 1/10/2013 9:35:02 PM

like the sale of alcohol, people who sell guns need to be responsible for making sure they do not get into the wrong hands.

do you know of any stores that sell alcohol that lock it up in a SAFE during their closed hours?



No, but then again the consequences of alcohol being stolen by someone who intendeds to misuse it are not nearly as devastating as the consequences of a gun being stolen by someone who intends to misuse it.

And I wasn't suggesting that guns should be treated exactly the same as alcohol. I was suggesting that guns, like alcohol, fall under the "strict liability" clause and therefore business who sell them are responsible for making sure that the wrong people do not get a hold of them.

Locking guns in a safe during closing hours would help prevent criminals from stealing them. Keep everything but the displays in safes during business hours, and at closing time make sure the displays are also secured.

Along the same lines, homeowners who keep alcohol in their homes do not lock it in a safe. However, many gun owners lock their guns in a safe in their home. Why? Obviously prevent it from falling into the wrong hands. It is the responsible thing to do.


-Rachelle


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



Long ago Barney
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 141,410
April 2004
Posts: 8,423
Layouts: 0
Loc: Arizona

Posted: 1/10/2013 9:38:04 PM
I sure hope not -am not ready for a civil war. Besides the s s hasn't given up their guns yet...........


Uploaded with iPhone client

wren*walk
PeaAddict

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

Posted: 1/10/2013 9:41:40 PM

I think both qustions are valid. Or even this one: How do we keep access to guns for law abiding citizens of sound mind without undue hardship for them, while protecting the innocent from the evil, mental illness and incompetence of gun owners?






OK, what is "undue hardship" in that context?

100% background checks on all gun sales? Laws putting greater accountability upon gun owners for safely securing their weapons in the home? With consequences. And one I heard suggested on CNN this evening, mandatory reporting of theft or loss of guns, which could help reduce the incidence of "straw" buyers. Are those undue hardships?

I agree it is a multi facted social issue and that it will take many different approaches from several different directions to make a dent. I think you and I agreed on an earlier thread that the mental health issue should be addressed. I believe it should be a goal to further destigmatize mental illness and provide more comprehensive services as a matter of course, quite seperate from the gun issue though. I'm unconvinced that this is the predominant or major causal factor for all the gun violence going on in America. But sure, it should be addressed. And if that saves lives, I'm all for it.

I just don't think it's going to come down to a single thing, like a gun registry, or a ban on semis. It's going to take a lot of different pieces. And I'm afraid, law abiding gun owners ARE probably going to be inconvenienced if anything comes of this current committee. And some are going to be steaming mad about it and put up a giant fuss. But I've think we've gone beyond a point now.

I think the general sentiment in the country has already turned. It really did reach a tipping point with Newtown. So lets do something that is not as draconian as a gun ban or confiscation (really, who has suggested that in all seriousness) but that is going to clamp down on the overall ease of access, and possibly outlaw the multiple ammo clips and semis. That's my wish list.






ePEAcenter
BucketHead

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

Posted: 1/11/2013 1:50:24 AM

BO will probably sign the treaty with the UN that gives THEM control over our guns.

Tinfoil hat anyone?


Hardly crazy. This totally valid fear refers to the UN Arms Trade Treaty (commonly known by its former name, the UN Small Arms Treaty).

This treaty began in the UN in 2001. Previous US administrations and the State Dept refused to participate in negotiations on the treaty and used procedural maneuvers to block its progress because they saw the underlying issues with the concept of the treaty making the legal actions of American citizens (purchasing and owning weapons) become illegal and prosecutable in international courts.

Immediately after reelection in November 2012, the Obama administration shifted years of policy and actively engaged with the UN committee and began negotiations on advancing what is known as the ATT. Negotiations will commence again in March 2013.

The ATT establishes standards for the import, export and transfer (sale) of conventional firearms. Mexico wants the treaty to regulate hunting rifles, because it claims hunting rifles are used by drug cartels. This demonstrates how quickly such a slippery slope can impact the individual rights of Americans, because any weapon that can be used for sport or self-defense could also be used in ways that the treaty might regulate.


ePEAcenter
BucketHead

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

Posted: 1/11/2013 2:12:53 AM

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



The ammonium nitrate regulation requires purchases above 25 lbs be screened against a terror watch list. Meaning a bad guy now has to visit 10 home depot stores rather than 1 to purchase their bomb making equipment.

The point of the example is not to say that we should do nothing because there are other examples of unregulated danger. The point is that we should focus our efforts on the issue: In the example: would be terrorists. In the case of firearms: criminals and the mentally unstable.

I'm 100% in favor of regulating criminals and the insane.


PghScrapper
Waiting for Godot

PeaNut 210,270
June 2005
Posts: 11,048
Layouts: 47
Loc: Back in the 'Burgh

Posted: 1/11/2013 3:38:33 AM
All this outcry about "my 2nd amendment rights" is ringing any bells for me.

I have a right to free speech under the 1st amendment, but that doesn't give me the right to arbitrarily shout "fire" in a crowded theater, or to libel or slander another person. These are reasonable controls that are in the interest of the greater good, but do not restrict my freedom to engage in discourse and speak out.

How is requiring background checks for all gun purchases, registration of weapons, or owner re-licensing requirements limiting gun ownership by "good law-abiding citizens" any different? Yet, the NRA and their proponents are against all of these things. I honestly don't get it and probably never will.


-----------------------------------------
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. -Eleanor Roosevelt

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

PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,713
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio

Posted: 1/11/2013 6:38:26 AM
"How is requiring background checks for all gun purchases, registration of weapons, or owner re-licensing requirements limiting gun ownership by "good law-abiding citizens" any different? Yet, the NRA and their proponents are against all of these things. I honestly don't get it and probably never will. "
------------

Because its not the good law abiding citizens that are commiting crimes, yet these restrictions and regulations are aimed at the good law abiding citizens and not the criminals.

Further restricting the rights of good law abiding citizens will do nothing to prevent the crimes.

Does that help you understand?





"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

PeaCeaRyder
BucketHead

PeaNut 411,442
February 2009
Posts: 949
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/11/2013 7:53:36 AM

I would honestly be willing to temporarily suspend my 4th Am. right in favor of a huge coordinated gun sweep across the country. If that would yield a result then please search all the homes, I am ok with that.
How long is "temporarily"? It's statements like this that greatly concern me. ETA:

You can't legislate evil.
That.



"It is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God...and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord." - Abraham Lincoln

Proclamation of a National Fast-Day, March 30, 1863.
Quoted in Marion Mills Miller, ed., Life and Works of Abraham Lincoln, Centenary Edition, In Nine Volumes: Volume VI (New York: The Current Literature Publishing Co., 1907), p. 156.

"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." - George Orwell

*maureen*
Bad Wolf

PeaNut 191,892
February 2005
Posts: 6,008
Layouts: 0
Loc: Wheaton

Posted: 1/11/2013 8:01:14 AM

How is requiring background checks for all gun purchases, registration of weapons, or owner re-licensing requirements limiting gun ownership by "good law-abiding citizens" any different? Yet, the NRA and their proponents are against all of these things. I honestly don't get it and probably never will.


It's not. We have to have drivers licenses to drive a car, we have to register the car with the state and we have to show we are responsible owners by having insurance in case we hurt someone or damage property. Reasonable people who care both about gun violence and their right to own guns have no problem with laws requiring them to prove responsible ownership. I have to be recertified by the state of Illinois every ten years. It's no big deal. Nor is a three day waiting period or the gun shop keeping records of what I purchase. No government enitity has ever even hinted at taking away my gun.

I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,376
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 1/11/2013 8:11:05 AM

Because its not the good law abiding citizens that are commiting crimes, yet these restrictions and regulations are aimed at the good law abiding citizens and not the criminals.

Further restricting the rights of good law abiding citizens will do nothing to prevent the crimes.

Does that help you understand?


No, actually, it doesn't.

Good law abiding citizens are required to register their cars, pass a driving test and be licensed to operate a motor vehicle. All manner of occupations are required to be trained and licensed before, for example, the operators of a lethal pair of scissors can cut your hair.

Few people whined when we started standing in long lines at the airport, show a valid photo ID, be subjected to pat down searches, just to clear security before getting on an airplane....yet none of these people had committed a crime, or made a terrorist threat. We do it because it is a measure of safety. Will taking your shoes off, or leaving your box cutter at home, stop the next terrorist attack? Probably not, but we do it anyway. Will it inconvenience a law abiding gun owner to go through a few more steps in order to keep their guns. Maybe so, but why wouldn't a law abiding citizen want to do all they could in the hope that it will reduce gun violence in this country?

And it seems to me that all these good, law abiding citizens, are largely responsible for getting guns into the hands of criminals anyway. I can sell my legal acquired weapons to my next door neighbor for nothing more than the exchange of a few dollars. I don't know what he's going to do with said weapon...he could be a law abiding citizen, or he could be a mass murderer, but there's nothing in place to stop, or monitor, that transaction (in Florida anyway) So when folks who are opposed to any regulations for 'law abiding' citizens, and say things like 'criminals will get guns anyway'.....they're right, the criminals are getting them from US!!!


MergeLeft
Typical Liberal

PeaNut 221,236
August 2005
Posts: 21,057
Layouts: 67
Loc: Houston

Posted: 1/11/2013 8:24:10 AM

banning certain types of weapons and clips won't stop someone that has the will to cause harm.


If the shooter's mom hadn't had those legally obtained (and, apparently, poorly secured) guns because they were banned, the children of Sandy Hook would be alive today. Guns are easy for criminals to get precisely because they're easy for law-abiding citizens to get. We can't stop evil 100% but we sure can make it harder for it to accomplish its goal.



Burning Feather
I conceived but I can't see you

PeaNut 158,336
July 2004
Posts: 37,659
Layouts: 3
Loc: Ain't no black widow serial killer going to get between me and my man

Posted: 1/11/2013 8:24:56 AM

I would honestly be willing to temporarily suspend my 4th Am. right in favor of a huge coordinated gun sweep across the country. If that would yield a result then please search all the homes, I am ok with that.


How about you suspend your rights for yourself and let them come in and search your home. I would prefer to keep my rights and not have someone speak for me.


Carla

http://goo.gl/rniHrM Gwynnie Bee - first month free



gottapeanow
Full of faith pea

PeaNut 79,417
April 2003
Posts: 10,843
Layouts: 57
Loc: Phoenix area

Posted: 1/11/2013 9:21:56 AM

You can't legislate evil.


That.

A suicidal and /or extremely mentally ill person won't care about legislation either.

Lisa


*maureen*
Bad Wolf

PeaNut 191,892
February 2005
Posts: 6,008
Layouts: 0
Loc: Wheaton

Posted: 1/11/2013 9:25:30 AM
Here's the thing about the whole "you can't legislate evil" - all laws serve the purpose of protecting us from "evil." Are those of you who espouse this philosophy willing to retract all laws with this purpose or is this simply about keeping your guns?


Uploaded with iPhone client

gottapeanow
Full of faith pea

PeaNut 79,417
April 2003
Posts: 10,843
Layouts: 57
Loc: Phoenix area

Posted: 1/11/2013 12:04:44 PM
Maybe the word "extreme" evil needs to be put in place.

Technically, it's "evil" to speed. But the law has penalties for speeding. The faster you go, the higher fines you pay.

It's more "evil" to commit a property crime.

It's an even more serious level of evil to hurt someone.

Most people respond to the parameters of society and very very few repeatedly commit crimes or commit such heinous crimes as AL or the Aurora shooter or the Tucson shooter, JL. These people would be labeled extremely evil.

Lisa


Kim M.
"I am the holder of Virgin Superpowers. Really."

PeaNut 73,616
March 2003
Posts: 13,389
Layouts: 254
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World

Posted: 1/11/2013 12:14:50 PM

I would honestly be willing to temporarily suspend my 4th Am. right in favor of a huge coordinated gun sweep across the country. If that would yield a result then please search all the homes, I am ok with that.


The government can't sweep and deport 15 million illegal immigrants. The government couldn't keep track of 20,000 firearms that made their way across the Mexican border in Fast and Furious. What makes you think they can sweep and confiscate 300 million legal fire arms?

I think you're giving our administration far to much credit in pulling off a coordinated effort like this.



Kim

Kim M.
"I am the holder of Virgin Superpowers. Really."

PeaNut 73,616
March 2003
Posts: 13,389
Layouts: 254
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World

Posted: 1/11/2013 12:17:50 PM

If the shooter's mom hadn't had those legally obtained (and, apparently, poorly secured) guns because they were banned, the children of Sandy Hook would be alive today. Guns are easy for criminals to get precisely because they're easy for law-abiding citizens to get. We can't stop evil 100% but we sure can make it harder for it to accomplish its goal.


You're blaming the shooters mom? The first victim of the person that took it upon himself to kill those children and teachers, in addition to his own mom?

I can assure you, with no doubt, that taking guns from law abiding citizens will not stop the shooter that wants to make some sort of statement with a mass killing.


Kim

Kim M.
"I am the holder of Virgin Superpowers. Really."

PeaNut 73,616
March 2003
Posts: 13,389
Layouts: 254
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World

Posted: 1/11/2013 12:34:26 PM

So the gun executive order goes away and the debt ceiling EO goes through and somehow people will be relieved. Nothing to back that up. Just a feeling. I admit I get more cynical of DC by the day.


Thank you, Me GOP. (I know, this was on page 1, but I'm just now reading what I've missed on 2Peas!)

I don't like this "left hand, right hand, presto-chango" going on in DC right now at all. A Biden "gaffe" (which is actually an announcement) takes the heat off of the debt ceiling, off of smaller paychecks from a temporary tax cut, off of Benghazi, off of Fast and Furious, etc.

I, too, am more cynical of our politicians motives with every move they make.


Kim

MergeLeft
Typical Liberal

PeaNut 221,236
August 2005
Posts: 21,057
Layouts: 67
Loc: Houston

Posted: 1/11/2013 12:46:28 PM

You're blaming the shooters mom? The first victim of the person that took it upon himself to kill those children and teachers, in addition to his own mom?


Absolutely I'm blaming the shooter's mom. She did not secure those guns appropriately. Responsible gun owners keep them locked up, not out and available for anyone.

If she'd had her guns locked in a safe, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. It's unfortunate for her that she lost her life as well, but other than her son, she has no one to blame but herself.



*Kath*
Official Time Clock of 2Ps

PeaNut 2,739
February 2000
Posts: 10,050
Layouts: 0
Loc: On a cruise ship fighting zombies

Posted: 1/11/2013 1:01:45 PM

If she'd had her guns locked in a safe, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. It's unfortunate for her that she lost her life as well, but other than her son, she has no one to blame but herself.


So if my son murders me with a knife in the home, I should bear part of the blame? What about if he punches me until I die?







--------------------
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.



Kim M.
"I am the holder of Virgin Superpowers. Really."

PeaNut 73,616
March 2003
Posts: 13,389
Layouts: 254
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World

Posted: 1/11/2013 1:02:20 PM

Absolutely I'm blaming the shooter's mom. She did not secure those guns appropriately. Responsible gun owners keep them locked up, not out and available for anyone.

If she'd had her guns locked in a safe, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. It's unfortunate for her that she lost her life as well, but other than her son, she has no one to blame but herself.


As I said, things have been a bit hectic. I may not be up to date on the most current reports. Were her guns unsecured? Or, were they secured and he accessed them before killing his mother? Were they under lock and key or laying in the open? Were they in a combination safe where he figured out the combo? If you could link, that would be great!

ETA: Just clarifying the question since we know that he killed his mother with one of the guns from their home.


Kim

khazlett
BucketHead

PeaNut 231,422
November 2005
Posts: 821
Layouts: 0
Loc: USA

Posted: 1/11/2013 1:10:06 PM

would honestly be willing to temporarily suspend my 4th Am. right in favor of a huge coordinated gun sweep across the country. If that would yield a result then please search all the homes, I am ok with that.


I however am not willing to suspend my rights. Let them come search your house but they are not welcome in mine.


BO will probably sign the treaty with the UN that gives THEM control over our guns.
`````````````````````````````````
Tinfoil hat anyone?
`````````````````````````

Hardly crazy. This totally valid fear refers to the UN Arms Trade Treaty (commonly known by its former name, the UN Small Arms Treaty).




I agree this is not crazy at all. The treaty is there and his signature could very well make this a reality.

*Kath*
Official Time Clock of 2Ps

PeaNut 2,739
February 2000
Posts: 10,050
Layouts: 0
Loc: On a cruise ship fighting zombies

Posted: 1/11/2013 1:20:10 PM

Let them come search your house but they are not welcome in mine.


All a person would have to do is hide their guns until their house was searched and then put them right back in when they were done.

The government doesn't have the money for this anyway. They won't be able to pay for Medicare and Social Security in a few years, let alone search of all Americans' homes. At this rate of spending, how many years do you think they have left before they financially implode?

The best they can do is fly around their little drones and try to spy on people through the windows and then serve search warrants. The public would love that.

And another comment on earlier discussion, the government can use drones to shoot dissenters of the law to anyone worried about the government protecting itself from the little people. Drone versus "assault rife," I'm betting on the drone. They already do it overseas.






--------------------
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.



MergeLeft
Typical Liberal

PeaNut 221,236
August 2005
Posts: 21,057
Layouts: 67
Loc: Houston

Posted: 1/11/2013 1:21:38 PM
1. If he could access them, they were not secured appropriately. I don't need a link to determine that.

2. If I had a mentally ill person in my close family, I'd sure as hell have the knives locked up, too.



*Kath*
Official Time Clock of 2Ps

PeaNut 2,739
February 2000
Posts: 10,050
Layouts: 0
Loc: On a cruise ship fighting zombies

Posted: 1/11/2013 1:26:49 PM
He was an adult, not a child, and maybe she didn't know he was mentally ill. Was he determined mentally ill? Did she know that? What if he used his fists, what if he used some other gadget to kill her? Is she still partially to blame?

Does the partial blame on her rest solely because the weapon used was a gun? Would there be any partial blame on her for her own death if the weapon used was fists or something else instead?

Can a specific weapon used in one's death determine whether or not the person that died was partially to blame for their own death?




--------------------
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.



PghScrapper
Waiting for Godot

PeaNut 210,270
June 2005
Posts: 11,048
Layouts: 47
Loc: Back in the 'Burgh

Posted: 1/11/2013 2:10:28 PM

"How is requiring background checks for all gun purchases, registration of weapons, or owner re-licensing requirements limiting gun ownership by "good law-abiding citizens" any different? Yet, the NRA and their proponents are against all of these things. I honestly don't get it and probably never will. "
------------

Because its not the good law abiding citizens that are commiting [sic] crimes, yet these restrictions and regulations are aimed at the good law abiding citizens and not the criminals.

Further restricting the rights of good law abiding citizens will do nothing to prevent the crimes.

Does that help you understand?

I-95 answered that question quite completely.

But I have one for you - following your logic, "good law abiding citizens" won't libel and slander another person. Should we also do away with those laws too?

Frankly, I think you are so vested (financially and emotionally) in the gun business because of your husband's occupation you cannot be objective on this topic.


-----------------------------------------
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. -Eleanor Roosevelt

lovetodigi
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 257,022
April 2006
Posts: 8,467
Layouts: 5
Loc: USA

Posted: 1/11/2013 2:13:25 PM

He was an adult, not a child, and maybe she didn't know he was mentally ill. Was he determined mentally ill? Did she know that?
Actually there have been quite a few reports that she was becoming more and more concerned about him and was seeking to have him put into a mental hospital. Adult or child, it does not matter, he lived in her house. So, I agree that she should have had those guns and ammo locked up securely.




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

JenKate77
Reading when I should be cleaning!

PeaNut 89,592
June 2003
Posts: 6,486
Layouts: 5
Loc: Just come out so we can talk. Or sing about it.

Posted: 1/11/2013 2:18:49 PM

Well and another thing that needs to be done is that private gun sales need to be regulated somehow. In most states you can buy a gun from a private person with no background check at all. This is part of the gun show issue that has been brought up before. If they aren't a dealer it is legal most places.


That's the first thing my husband brought up in our on-going conversations about guns in America. He has several guns, some of you would probably make incorrect assumptions about him if you saw his collection. (Then again, my 12 year old also owns a .22 that some would classify as an "assault weapon", so maybe you'd judge the whole family.) He feels like ownership should be transferred legally, to protect the seller and the population in general. If you sell a car, there has to be a record, selling of "used" guns should and could follow the same rules.

We've actually discussed lots of different options for gun legislation in the last month, and I'm surprised at what he'd be willing to compromise on.

However, there is only one thing we've discussed as being reasonable and practical to legislate and enforce that could have possibly changed Newtown, and that's a magazine limit. It takes me husband roughly 10 seconds to change a magazine. What if Adam Lanza had only been able to shoot 10 bullets at at time? Maybe less death? I don't know.

We both agree that it's all worth discussion. If it stops ONE shooting from occurring or even lessens the impact when it does, let's put it on the table.


100% background checks on all gun sales? Laws putting greater accountability upon gun owners for safely securing their weapons in the home? With consequences. And one I heard suggested on CNN this evening, mandatory reporting of theft or loss of guns, which could help reduce the incidence of "straw" buyers. Are those undue hardships?


I like this idea. But what if someone steals our gun safe, transports it and manages to get it open? Are we responsible for crimes committed with those guns? Do we have any more details yet about how Nancy Lanza stored her guns?


1. If he could access them, they were not secured appropriately. I don't need a link to determine that.


Without knowing what the situation is, I'm not willing to blame a dead woman. However I will say this - *I* personally, a (mostly) sane adult woman, would not be able to get out any "big" guns in our home. I am not a capable shooter, I would not be able to defend myself, so there's no purpose to me accessing them. I know combinations to safes, so I could access ammunition, but I do not know where the keys to the cases for individual guns are kept. My son does not have access to his own .22. It is, however, top of my husband's list this spring and summer that I learn to use and understand the guns we own.

Adam Lanza may have been mentally ill, but I think everything points to him being very, very smart. His Mom may have thought her weapons were secure, but maybe he had been planning this for a long time and figured out combinations etc.

Also, she knew he had problems, but do you really think she knew how unstable he was? Do any of us think our own children are capable of something like this? I can't lay blame at her feet, I can only feel sorrow for a woman that was shot by her own child.

I hope we can find some common ground, some plan, some way forward. I can be a gun owner and also love children, and be heartbroken about what happened in Newtown. Some of you seem incapable of understanding that.

The thing is - I've been around guns my entire life. I did live in Canada from the age of 7-18, but that was on the prairie and there were plenty of guns there. Now I live in a very rural part of the western US. Guns will never be this evil thing that need to be banned and confiscated. They're a tool, a hobby, a collectible, although a very powerful one.

I also know that there are several of you who don't know gun owners. Who have never held or actually seen a gun. In my immediate circle of friends I can think of only two that don't have guns. One might, but I don't know. The other one is planning on learning to shoot and eventually plans to purchase a gun.

But I know that some of you don't KNOW any gun owners. How do we come to a place where both parties can be reasonable? I don't know, but I'm willing to be patient. I'm willing to endure some name calling and misinformation, if it puts us any closer to actual results.

Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,667
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County

Posted: 1/11/2013 3:05:55 PM

But I know that some of you don't KNOW any gun owners. How do we come to a place where both parties can be reasonable? I don't know, but I'm willing to be patient. I'm willing to endure some name calling and misinformation, if it puts us any closer to actual results.


As someone who has never seen a real gun except in the holster of cop is why I have been waiting ( not patiently I might add) for gun owners to step up to the plate with real solutions that will work.

So far the voice of the gun owners has been very disappointing. I wish gun owners like your husband would speak out and then maybe something will get done.

I totally agree about with your comments about the changing of ownership. I suspect a lot of the illegal guns on the street and sold on the black market started out life as legal guns. Yes I know guns are brought into this country illegally but not all.

That is why I support a national gun registery. One that could track the gun from the time its manufactured in the US or legally imported in the US until its destroyed. Everytime the gun is sold the registery is up-dated for that gun. If its lost or stolen then the data base needs to reflect that as well. If not and the gun is used in crime the last owner of record, unless its updated to show the is lost or stolen, would become an accessory to the crime. Harsh yes but that comes with the responsiblity of owning a gun. Or it should.

Other than that I'm open to anything that makes sense and will help solve the problem. But I think the solutions should come from gun owners. This is a compromise for me as not too long ago I wanted all guns gone. I don't see the need for them but sometimes you just have to learn to compromise...


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

PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,713
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio

Posted: 1/11/2013 3:29:45 PM
"Frankly, I think you are so vested (financially and emotionally) in the gun business because of your husband's occupation you cannot be objective on this topic."
----------

Why should I have to be "objective" about this?

And on that note, not only am I not objective due to my husbands occupation, but because I am an American citizen who sees a full frontal assault on a God-given right that the government is supposed to protect. No one should be "objective" about the theft of their basic rights.





"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

scrappower
Allons-y Alonso

PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 15,324
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/11/2013 3:56:52 PM
To pass the Arms Trade Treaty from the UN, U.S. ratification would require passage by a 2/3 majority of the U.S. Senate in addition to presidential approval.

So it doesn't lie with President Obama alone. That is why I said what I did to Skybar.



tserenity
BucketHead

PeaNut 397,621
October 2008
Posts: 523
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/11/2013 4:01:15 PM
Firearms Refresher Course ... Simple as this!

1. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson

2. "Those who trade liberty for security have neither." ~ John Adams

3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

6. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

9. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

13.. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

14. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand?

15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.

16. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.


Let me add, that foremost, way too many of you who are for our guns being taken away, do not understand the plain, simple fact, that many US citizens live in and live by a lifestyle that REQUIRES guns...we hunt for food, we use them to kill off animals that are killing our livestock, etc., etc., etc....we do not live on 'white picket fence main st USA'...we live on 'we work for a living killing much of the food that fills our freezers, and protect ourselves because dialing 911 in an emergency means the cops might get here an hour later if they happen to have a car in our county USA '



TraceyS
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 25,442
December 2001
Posts: 2,782
Layouts: 16
Loc: Kentucky

Posted: 1/11/2013 5:19:03 PM

Here's the thing about the whole "you can't legislate evil" - all laws serve the purpose of protecting us from "evil." Are those of you who espouse this philosophy willing to retract all laws with this purpose or is this simply about keeping your guns?


I don't believe that our laws serve the purpose of protecting us from evil. If that were the case, there would be none. Our laws serve to specify society's response to inevitable evil - what we intend to do about it after the fact. The law might additionally serve to deter some people from certain actions, but if there were no specific laws against murder I don't believe that the majority of people would be out looking for people to kill. Does anyone here *not* commit murder, rape, child abuse, etc. just because there is a law against it? I doubt it. I imagine that most of us don't do those things because its wrong and we don't have any desire to treat people that way.

I think is is the problem with just looking at more "easy" laws to solve these kinds of problems. It's relatively easy to say, "Lets ban this list of guns and magazines that hold more than X number of rounds" (political pushback not withstanding). But that does nothing to address why these events happen. That's a much harder question which, IMO, deserves way more study and discussion than it is likely to get. It seems to me that we want to find a quick "solution", get something into law so that politicians can say they have done something, and then just wait for the next event.

Burning Feather
I conceived but I can't see you

PeaNut 158,336
July 2004
Posts: 37,659
Layouts: 3
Loc: Ain't no black widow serial killer going to get between me and my man

Posted: 1/11/2013 5:43:31 PM
When it comes to the subject of "background checks" do you really believe that will be effective? Illinois has background checks on 100% of gun licenses. You have to apply to the state police department, pay a fee, submit a photo similar to a passport photo (or they digitally hijack your driver's license photo) and then wait for several weeks to get a card.

You cannot purchase a weapon of any sort or even ammunition in Illinois without that card. And even with that card, you have to wait 72 hours.

Furthermore, in Chicago, you have to register your weapons with the police department.

Illinois is also the only state in the US that does not have concealed weapons of any sort.

So theoretically, there should be no gun crime in Illinois, right?

It's a stupid system that doesn't work. All one has to do is look at Illinois to see that.


Carla

http://goo.gl/rniHrM Gwynnie Bee - first month free



Simply_Lovely
AncestralPea

PeaNut 463,295
April 2010
Posts: 4,171
Layouts: 3
Loc: New York City

Posted: 1/11/2013 5:51:57 PM

What makes you think they can sweep and confiscate 300 million legal fire arms?


I was talking about ILLEGAL firearms, have you not seen which side I am on here??
And it was a frustrated wishful thinking. I am frustrated with this topic as a whole because we cannot have any meaningful discussion when one side has absolutely no idea what they are talking about, do not understand guns, gun culture, gun ownership and some never even seen a privately owned gun. They just want a quick band-aid to calm themselves down, and the focus is guns because it something they fear, mostly due to lack of understanding it. I officially give up. But if and when gun control or disarming citizens doesn't work, mark my words, the 2nd Amendment will be reinstated with the quickness, after the damage is done of course.

/rant over. Peace! (I'm hairflipping from gun conversations)




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