07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 99100101102103 ...
tools
  1. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Every piece I've seen they went in and legally purchased a firearm. I think it's actually illegal for felons to go to gun shows, but I'm not sure.
    And if any FFL seller sells without doing a background check, they'll lose their license and probably be arrested.
    Do you have a link to this story?
    .
    Yup! Tonight on AC360: Gun show hidden camera investigation Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs

    Who's child is more likely to be kidnapped or harmed? Snoop Dogg's kid, who goes to a private school, and most likely has armed security, or your kid that goes to a public school with no protection and is a "GUN FREE ZONE"

    I didn't say schools were spending the money on nonsense. But really they are. It costs about, let's say $2000 of your tax dollars to send you kid to school every year. In a classroom of 30 kids, that's $60,000 a year. Teachers get paid, what? $30,000 a year, and that's being generous. In a school with 30 teachers, that's $900,000 after paying the teachers. Where does all that money go? Teachers end up paying for classroom supplies out of their own paycheck.

    But other than the scam of our county's education system, there's money elsewhere that the government could use to pay for guards. Like the 230 million our government gave to the Brotherhood of Islam, a known terrorist organization to most countries except ours, or the hundreds of millions of dollars our government is funneling into Syrian rebels with known links to Al Qaeda. The stockpile of thousands of tanks that continue to be built and aren't needed by our military and that are just collecting dust in the desert.
    .
    Ah okay...so you want to expand the federal government at a time when many people want to shrink it or eliminate the U.S. Dept. of Education entirely, and have that money from those other things you mentioned, diverted to fund local security efforts instead. Interesting.
    05-28-2013 09:45 PM
  2. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Why do people take such exception with a waiting period? If you have THAT urgent of a need for a gun, start sooner! Although if you have other proposals, I am all ears.

    Nothing in the Constitution comes without limits. Again, as I made mention, even the 1st amendment has boundaries. Frankly most people need the ability to drive more then they need a gun. Maybe the rights should have been flipped. Or maybe they BOTH should be considered a privilege considering the harm either of them can do to a human being. Strangely we require training for the driving one, but for guns...eh...just grab one and go. Every state should require training, and like cars there should be a certain age limit. I have a BIG problem with guns being marketed to children. Crickett Firearms - My First Rifle - Youth Model 22 Rifles - Proudly Made In The USA


    Why are those not classified as arms?
    Then this ad should really drive you crazy, its from a 1957 Superman comic (you might have to scroll down a bit). Comic Coverage: Classic Ads. While I added this to show how long firearms have been marketed to kids I have to state that I have no problem with kids using firearms under qualified parental control. As I have stated here before my now 12 year old daughter has an ar-15 in one of my gun safes that is set up for her. It has an adjustable stock, pistol grip. As soon as a friend of mine gets back from vacation I am thinking about having it painted pink for her, or having some type of graphics put on it. She can shoot 5-7 inch groups from about 75-100 yards with the new scope I bought her last month.

    Firearms - Frequently Asked Questions - Firearms Technology | ATF states:
    The term firearm is defined in the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(3), to include (A) any weapon (including a starter gun), which will, or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon. Based on Section 921(a)(3), air guns, because they use compressed air and not an explosive to expel a projectile, do not constitute firearms under Federal law unless they are manufactured with the frames or receivers of an actual firearm. Accordingly, the domestic sale and possession of air guns is normally unregulated under the Federal firearms laws enforced by ATF.
    We caution that ATF is not charged with enforcement or oversight of the firearms laws of States or localities. To determine possible restrictions on air guns where you reside, we recommend that you contact the office of your state Attorney General, the State Police, or other State/local law enforcement authorities for further guidance.

    For example an RPG is a Rocket Propelled Grenade, I could be mistaken but I don't think an RPG launcher has the frame or receiver of an actual firearm.

    I think it is obvious from here why tanks, land mines and nukes are not considered firearms.
    05-28-2013 09:46 PM
  3. dchawk81's Avatar
    Part A makes them firearms. Projectiles are expelled by an explosive.

    Using your logic, the term firearm means "anything that has the frame or receiver of a firearm" and that simply doesn't make sense, because you can't use a word in its own definition.

    That's like saying "we're going to call the color blue blue because it's blue in color."
    05-28-2013 10:01 PM
  4. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Part A makes them firearms. Projectiles are expelled by an explosive.

    Using your logic, the term firearm means "anything that has the frame or receiver of a firearm" and that simply doesn't make sense, because you can't use a word in its own definition.

    That's like saying "we're going to call the color blue blue because it's blue in color."
    I admit that I did not write the law or definition, I simply provided the information you asked for.
    05-28-2013 10:12 PM
  5. dchawk81's Avatar
    I admit that I did not write the law or definition, I simply provided the information you asked for.
    I'm merely pointing out that you did not read it correctly. And no, I don't mean in the "both sides have a good argument and this is what judges and juries are for" sense but rather in the "missed a very important comma that changed the meaning of a sentence" sense.

    Oh, and I wasn't the one who asked for it.
    05-28-2013 10:41 PM
  6. Live2ride883's Avatar
    I'm merely pointing out that you did not read it correctly. And no, I don't mean in the "both sides have a good argument and this is what judges and juries are for" sense but rather in the "missed a very important comma that changed the meaning of a sentence" sense.

    Oh, and I wasn't the one who asked for it.
    OK, then I provided the information that was requested. Sorry for the misquote.

    I know southern Ohio isn't really considered the south but to quote Samuel L. Jackson

    " I don't think it's about more gun control
    I grew up in the south where guns are everywhere & we never shot anyone
    This [shooting] is about people that aren't taught the VALUE of life."- Samual L. Jackson

    I had an image of this posted but it had some f-bombs from FB that were included so i removed the image.
    05-28-2013 11:03 PM
  7. jova33's Avatar
    Not expand the federal government. Get rid of the dept of education. Bam, right there, that'll free up some local funding.

    Edit: also, have you heard of the voucher system I think? Basically, the way it works is that $2,500/year we take out of your taxes to send your kid to school, we're going to give you that $2,500 back to you in a voucher and you can send your kid to whatever school you want and that voucher goes to them. So what happens? Everyone send their kids to private schools, and public schools lose funding. But there's an up side to it. Public schools realize they have drastically change the way they do things because now they have to compete with private schools for funding. Public schools get on par with private schools, get their funding back, and children get the same education in a public school that they would at a private school. Everyone wins. That would free up resources and schools would be able to hire a security guard.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    05-28-2013 11:21 PM
  8. jova33's Avatar
    And I've never seen a gun show where they didn't ask for ID. In Texas, I even went to one in uniform and had to present ID.(I was in the Army at the time)
    I think those private sellers who didn't even check ID should be in some sort of legal trouble. And even so, they broke the law there, why wouldn't they break the law and not perform the mandatory background check if it were law? Criminals will be criminals, and the only ones affected by laws are law abiding citizens.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    05-28-2013 11:43 PM
  9. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Then this ad should really drive you crazy, its from a 1957 Superman comic (you might have to scroll down a bit). Comic Coverage: Classic Ads. While I added this to show how long firearms have been marketed to kids I have to state that I have no problem with kids using firearms under qualified parental control. As I have stated here before my now 12 year old daughter has an ar-15 in one of my gun safes that is set up for her. It has an adjustable stock, pistol grip. As soon as a friend of mine gets back from vacation I am thinking about having it painted pink for her, or having some type of graphics put on it. She can shoot 5-7 inch groups from about 75-100 yards with the new scope I bought her last month.

    Firearms - Frequently Asked Questions - Firearms Technology | ATF states:
    The term firearm is defined in the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(3), to include (A) any weapon (including a starter gun), which will, or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon. Based on Section 921(a)(3), air guns, because they use compressed air and not an explosive to expel a projectile, do not constitute firearms under Federal law unless they are manufactured with the frames or receivers of an actual firearm. Accordingly, the domestic sale and possession of air guns is normally unregulated under the Federal firearms laws enforced by ATF.
    We caution that ATF is not charged with enforcement or oversight of the firearms laws of States or localities. To determine possible restrictions on air guns where you reside, we recommend that you contact the office of your state Attorney General, the State Police, or other State/local law enforcement authorities for further guidance.

    For example an RPG is a Rocket Propelled Grenade, I could be mistaken but I don't think an RPG launcher has the frame or receiver of an actual firearm.

    I think it is obvious from here why tanks, land mines and nukes are not considered firearms.
    So it's interesting to me that some people view the 2nd amendment in biblical proportions, but then are okay with later definitions that place limits on the kinds of acceptable weaponry. One that comes to mind is the fully automatic machine gun. Those aren't readily available. Although I do know that some people out there think the 2nd amendment means they have a right to anything and everything. I even know one of those types personally. She really wants a tank for her driveway and has made the claim in a debate I had with her that she should have access to nukes if necessary. LOL...of course! It never ceases to amaze me, how obsessed people can become over obtaining things that kill other human beings and how paranoid some people can be.

    (And no, that ad doesn't make me too too crazy...it's for BBs right? That can hurt people I suppose, but it's not using bullets)
    05-29-2013 01:04 PM
  10. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Not expand the federal government. Get rid of the dept of education. Bam, right there, that'll free up some local funding.

    Edit: also, have you heard of the voucher system I think? Basically, the way it works is that $2,500/year we take out of your taxes to send your kid to school, we're going to give you that $2,500 back to you in a voucher and you can send your kid to whatever school you want and that voucher goes to them. So what happens? Everyone send their kids to private schools, and public schools lose funding. But there's an up side to it. Public schools realize they have drastically change the way they do things because now they have to compete with private schools for funding. Public schools get on par with private schools, get their funding back, and children get the same education in a public school that they would at a private school. Everyone wins. That would free up resources and schools would be able to hire a security guard.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    Well no, not really. There aren't private schools in every neighborhood and there isn't enough space in private schools for every child. Therefore it's a very flawed idea. Because in fact, "everyone" cannot send their kids to private schools. I suppose we could just do away with schools altogether, and leave only the private option, but that will just make people even more uneducated than they already are. Not to mention put a whole lot of people out of work, from teachers, to bus drivers to janitors. But this isn't an education thread, so I think maybe we should keep it on topic. I still don't think turning places of education into armed encampments is the solution to our problems.
    05-29-2013 01:16 PM
  11. Live2ride883's Avatar
    So it's interesting to me that some people view the 2nd amendment in biblical proportions, but then are okay with later definitions that place limits on the kinds of acceptable weaponry. One that comes to mind is the fully automatic machine gun. Those aren't readily available. Although I do know that some people out there think the 2nd amendment means they have a right to anything and everything. I even know one of those types personally. She really wants a tank for her driveway and has made the claim in a debate I had with her that she should have access to nukes if necessary. LOL...of course! It never ceases to amaze me, how obsessed people can become over obtaining things that kill other human beings and how paranoid some people can be.

    (And no, that ad doesn't make me too too crazy...it's for BBs right? That can hurt people I suppose, but it's not using bullets)
    As for a fully automatic machine gun, that requires some serious background checks, you have to call the local sheriff and advise him that in advance of you even transporting this type of weapon. I have a friend that has a class 3 license and several full auto Uzi's, I can hit more targets with my ar-15, than I can with the Uzi in the same time, with same magazine size etc. Machine guns are a lot harder to shoot accurately than people think they are. Additionally most ranges will not allow this weapon on their property due to the insurance.

    I am one that tends to have an "As it's written, is as it is" view to the entire Constitution, especially the bill of rights. I do not believe that our rights should be further restricted as technological advances occur. What many fail to see is if we allow the government to further and further restrict our rights eventually we will loose all of them. I think the Second Amendment is just as if not more important than the first. Honestly if we loose our Second Amendment rights what are we going to defend the others with.

    There is a Democratic senator (sorry I cannot think of his name) that is questioning if bloggers should be covered as journalists under the first amendment, what he is forgetting is that all Americans are covered by the first amendment, not just journalists. I hate to see someone burn our flag in protest, but for now it is covered as a freedom of speech so I accept they have a right to do this, and I also have a right to voice my dissatisfaction that they choose this way to express themselves.
    05-29-2013 03:03 PM
  12. jova33's Avatar
    Well what would you suggest? Make the "GUN FREE ZONE" signs bigger?

    Columbine happened during the assault weapons ban. The Virginia tech shooter used guns that would've been legal with the assault weapons ban. Many of the cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest rates of violent crime. Washington DC, which held the title for murder capital for a long time, and Chicago, where the death toll is higher than soldiers lost in Afghanistan. More laws aren't the solution, as the only people who obey the laws are law abiding citizens.
    Maybe security at schools isn't the answer, but it's a better answer than anything the president or the liberal left have suggested. Nothing they've put forward would've prevented Sandy Hook.

    Sent from my wireless telephonic device.
    The Hustleman and met.watts like this.
    05-29-2013 03:41 PM
  13. Aquila's Avatar
    but it's a better answer than anything the president or the liberal left have suggested. Nothing they've put forward would've prevented
    Two points on this... 1. No one has put forward any solutions, from either side that would reduce violence in any meaningful way. 2. No law or guard or anything will prevent crazy people from hurting people. Not a security guard, not an armed teacher, not a law, nothing. Because of point 2, we should be focusing on the big picture, not just mass shootings. Because of point 1, people need to get over obstructionist talking points and start talking about solutions. It's not about gun violence, it's about violence. It's not about gun crimes, it's about crime. Both 1 and 2 require a refocusing on defining what the goal is and then a constructive conversation about possible solutions.
    05-29-2013 03:59 PM
  14. jova33's Avatar
    Good points. I still think in the mean time, until the other stuff is worked out, some preventative measures should be put in place.
    I don't think there's a cure for crazy yet.

    Sent from my wireless telephonic device.
    05-29-2013 05:16 PM
  15. The Hustleman's Avatar
    Well what would you suggest? Make the "GUN FREE ZONE" signs bigger?

    Columbine happened during the assault weapons ban. The Virginia tech shooter used guns that would've been legal with the assault weapons ban. Many of the cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest rates of violent crime. Washington DC, which held the title for murder capital for a long time, and Chicago, where the death toll is higher than soldiers lost in Afghanistan. More laws aren't the solution, as the only people who obey the laws are law abiding citizens.
    Maybe security at schools isn't the answer, but it's a better answer than anything the president or the liberal left have suggested. Nothing they've put forward would've prevented Sandy Hook.

    Sent from my wireless telephonic device.
    This is nothing but the truth.

    If gun control worked, DC and Chicago would be the safest cities in the country

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
    05-29-2013 06:12 PM
  16. gollum18's Avatar
    The constitution was intended as a guideline for our government to follow, and the beauty within it, lies that it is flexible and can be changed. Why don't we just vote to amend the second amendment, so that it is more clearly specified what exactly it is that we are allowed to bear.

    I am one of those people that views the second amendment as, the right to own and take up arms in defense of my family, my life, my home, and my country against anyone who intends them harm.

    Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
    05-29-2013 11:09 PM
  17. jdbii's Avatar
    Why don't we just vote to amend the second amendment, so that it is more clearly specified what exactly it is that we are allowed to bear.
    We can anytime we want. Otherwise the Supreme Court has the final say on trying to figure it out.

    Posted via Android Central App
    Aquila likes this.
    05-29-2013 11:18 PM
  18. gollum18's Avatar
    We can anytime we want. Otherwise the Supreme Court has the final say on trying to figure it out.

    Posted via Android Central App
    I wouldn't count on the supreme court, they are supposed to rule on the constitution without bias, yet almost all of them belong to a major political party. How can you effectively rule on something when you are not an independent?

    Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
    Live2ride883 likes this.
    05-29-2013 11:27 PM
  19. Aquila's Avatar
    I wouldn't count on the supreme court, they are supposed to rule on the constitution without bias, yet almost all of them belong to a major political party. How can you effectively rule on something when you are not an independent?

    Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
    Specifically on this issue, 3 years ago they reversed the 150 years of precedent on the 2nd amendment and gave it new context. That by itself suggests the need for a much more clear explanation of exactly what it does and does not permit the government to regulate.
    jdbii and GadgetGator like this.
    05-29-2013 11:30 PM
  20. jdbii's Avatar
    I wouldn't count on the supreme court, they are supposed to rule on the constitution without bias, yet almost all of them belong to a major political party. How can you effectively rule on something when you are not an independent?

    Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
    There is no way around it. They are appointed by the Prez and confirmed by Congress. I suppose an Independent could one day be elected, or a Third Party Candidate, but any appointee still has to get passed Congress. I often wonder whether or not supporters of the 2nd Amendment fully understand that the Constitution can be amended and the Rights therein abrogated.
    05-29-2013 11:40 PM
  21. GadgetGator's Avatar
    As for a fully automatic machine gun, that requires some serious background checks, you have to call the local sheriff and advise him that in advance of you even transporting this type of weapon. I have a friend that has a class 3 license and several full auto Uzi's, I can hit more targets with my ar-15, than I can with the Uzi in the same time, with same magazine size etc. Machine guns are a lot harder to shoot accurately than people think they are. Additionally most ranges will not allow this weapon on their property due to the insurance.
    Well, with that statement, you sure aren't making the case that AR-15's shouldn't be treated the same way.

    I am one that tends to have an "As it's written, is as it is" view to the entire Constitution, especially the bill of rights. I do not believe that our rights should be further restricted as technological advances occur. What many fail to see is if we allow the government to further and further restrict our rights eventually we will loose all of them. I think the Second Amendment is just as if not more important than the first. Honestly if we loose our Second Amendment rights what are we going to defend the others with.
    First off, I am confused as to why you think whatever you own now under the second amendment is a defense at all. Your home and family? Sure. Against the government with all the weapons, people and technology at it's disposal? Not so much. Maybe you can explain that one to me.

    Secondly, you think technology shouldn't change things. Really? Are you sure? Cause I could envision a time where we have some sort of laser weapons that could rapidly kill even more people from even further distances away. You wouldn't even see it coming. And there would be no defense other then luck and not being in the wrong place at the wrong time. To me that seems like something we would want to place more restrictions on.

    There is a Democratic senator (sorry I cannot think of his name) that is questioning if bloggers should be covered as journalists under the first amendment, what he is forgetting is that all Americans are covered by the first amendment, not just journalists. I hate to see someone burn our flag in protest, but for now it is covered as a freedom of speech so I accept they have a right to do this, and I also have a right to voice my dissatisfaction that they choose this way to express themselves.
    Of couse. I agree with that. But just because a Senator thinks something doesn't mean it will come to be. There are a lot of wacky things that come out of right leaning Senators that are pushed back on.
    05-30-2013 02:10 PM
  22. jdbii's Avatar
    There is a Democratic senator (sorry I cannot think of his name) that is questioning if bloggers should be covered as journalists under the first amendment, what he is forgetting is that all Americans are covered by the first amendment, not just journalists. .
    It was Senator Durbin and he was talking about whether or not bloggers should be afforded the same privileges afforded journalist when it comes do protecting sources when forced to testify.



    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    Live2ride883 likes this.
    05-30-2013 02:20 PM
  23. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Good points. I still think in the mean time, until the other stuff is worked out, some preventative measures should be put in place.
    I don't think there's a cure for crazy yet.
    There have always been crazy people, yet we did not feel the need to arm our schools, so what has changed??? THAT is the the issue that needs to be addressed. Once the root cause is addressed, the other problems go away.

    That being said, I think we can and should address the mental health system more, the drug problem more, and listen to one another more. Sometimes people have had no idea that someone would do this sort of thing, but how many times have we heard things like "I knew he might do something someday" or "he always acted really strange" or "he has a history of violence". If people were looking for the signs more, especially family members and neighbors, perhaps at least some of this could be stopped and prevented.

    This is nothing but the truth.

    If gun control worked, DC and Chicago would be the safest cities in the country
    That's a flawed statement. Gun control fails because people can just bring things in right over the city limits. It's not like these cities have walls around them or are on an island surrounded by sharks. No one stops you and checks for weapons at the city limits. There are no border checkpoints into a city. Gun control works better in places like the U.K. or especially Australia, simply because it is applied to the entire country and they are more isolated geographically. If for example, only Sydney or only London had gun control, but the rest of their countries did not, you would see the same kind of failures.Yeah you can bring in things by boat, but it's not as easy as a car or truck. Everyone has to be on the same page. It has to be country wide or it doesn't work. All we are doing now is shuffling the guns around which doesn't really help anyone...except the criminals.
    jdbii and msndrstood like this.
    05-30-2013 02:27 PM
  24. jova33's Avatar
    Gun crimes have gone down in the UK and Australia, but overall violent crime has gone up. Crime was already at an all time low and still on the decline in the UK before the gun ban, so saying crime was low because of the gun ban is false.
    http://www.thecommentator.com/articl..._its_guns_back
    I don't like polls and haven't looked into this one as much as the "90% of America wants tougher background checks" poll, but the rest of the article seems legit.
    I looked heavily into Australia's crime rates, and all crimes in general have gone up. The only part that has gone down is guns aren't being used. Homicide, assault, sexual assault, burglary, and robbery all have gone up.
    Don't ask for links, this is stuff I looked up like a month ago debating this. You can Google the part about Australia, and look up the Harvard study on gun control.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    05-30-2013 02:45 PM
  25. jova33's Avatar
    There's always been school shootings. The media has been making these school shooters more and more famous since Columbine. Each one is trying to get a higher kill count, trying to get their message out there, and the media keeps giving them what they want. They keep making these sickos famous and it encourages others to do the same. If I kill enough people, I'll be national news, my message will be broadcast nationwide and my name will be a household name.
    You want to stop mass killings, stop making these guys famous, stop putting their name, face, and home videos on every television across the nation.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    met.watts likes this.
    05-30-2013 02:52 PM
4,617 ... 99100101102103 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD