guns

[tourists24]

well that leaves pretty much no gun control whatsoever, doesn't it? And "Who's standard" is exactly what we are trying to determine. From the Bloombergs to the Nugents and everyone in between are literally millions of ideas and variations on those ideas. Constitutionally speaking, we have traditionally allowed the Supreme Court to decide the standards for the time.

are you ok with the SCOTUS continuing that? why? Or do we do it at another level?
Im ok letting states decide but keeping the feds out. At least that way, we have 50 separate entities deciding what is best for their own state. A lot of examples to compare

 

[bbsam]

are you ok with the SCOTUS continuing that? why? Or do we do it at another level?
Im ok letting states decide but keeping the feds out. At least that way, we have 50 separate entities deciding what is best for their own state. A lot of examples to compare

Of.course I'm ok with the SCOTUS continuing their overview. Why? Because that's part of their constitutional duty.

 

[soberups]

Of.course I'm ok with the SCOTUS continuing their overview. Why? Because that's part of their constitutional duty.

The constitution isn't enough.

Just ask the law-abiding citizens of places like Chicago, New York City, San Francisco or Washington DC how well the 2nd Amendment has "protected" their right to own guns.

That "right" has been literally buried beneath a mountain of "reasonable, common sense" restrictions, regulations, bans, fees and licensing requirements that are specifically designed by oppressive state and city governments to prevent that right from actually being exercised by the citizenry.

Being a gun owner in those places is no different than being an African American voter in Alabama in 1950. You may have had a constitutional right to vote under the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, but good luck actually exercising that right. Good luck getting past the "reasonable, common sense" poll taxes and literacy tests that were deliberately designed to disenfranchise and deny you your rights.

A "Constitutional right" that you cannot actually exercise is not a right at all.

 

[BrownBrokeDown]

I never said that all gun laws are unconstitutional.

Philosophically, I would not necessarily have a problem with a higher initial barrier to gun ownership, in the form of licensing and training of gun owners...but I would then expect the "other side" to at least admit that their bans and restrictions and "gun free" zones haven't and wont work and that concealed carry by licensed and trained persons, including teachers, is part of the solution.

Problem is, the "other side" consists of people like Michael Bloomberg, whose idea of "common sense" and "reasonable" consists of using the force of law to deny me the right to buy a 32 ounce cup of soda, and whose ultimate goal is the virtual disarmament of the American public through creeping incrementalism. I am not interested in negotiating for my rights with a hypocrite like that who hires armed security for himself while actively seeking to deny such rights to his subjects. I am not interested in negotiating for my rights with people who have never fired or handled a gun, who hate guns, and whose knowledge of firearms is limited to what they saw watching "A-Team" growing up.

And bbsam, this is where a lot of people have problems with any gun control laws. I for one, would be alright with some. However, there is some in high ranking positions on the other side, that want guns entirely banned. Several, including Bloomberg, just see it as an incramental process. "Let's get that first law passed, then it will make the next one easier. 10 years, and guns will be banned." That is why so many of us fight any law. Should there be more training/registration. Sure. But it is a slippery slope.

 

[soberups]

See? This is exactly where I don't get you. I suggested arming all high school kids and you said, "Don't be ridiculous...". What's ridiculous about that? They are law abiding citizens. What age do those constitutional rights kick in and why? And just because gun free zones haven't stopped all massacres doesn't mean they haven't deterred many more does it? It's just like drinking and driving. Prohibiting it doesn't eliminate the problem but does allowing drinking and driving make the roads safer? No.

1. Minors do not have full Constitutional rights and never have. They cannot vote, they cannot own property or enter into legally binding contracts, they cannot drink alcohol, and they cannot buy or own guns. No rational person would suggest giving minors all of these rights and no rational person would suggest that giving guns to teenagers would make schools safer.
'
2. Every single mass shooting that has occurred in a school or mall or theater has been premeditated. The shooter never intended to obey the laws that require these places to be "gun free" zones. The only people who did obey the law became unarmed victims of the criminals who didn't.

3. Comparing drinking and driving to allowing guns in public places is a false analogy. An otherwise law-abiding person who drives under the influence is a danger to everyone around him on the road. A law-abiding person who carries a firearm is not.

4. The people who cling to the fantasy of "gun free zones" as a solution have the false belief that the gun is responsible for murders when in fact the responsibility lies with the criminal who wields it. A gun is an inanimate object. Possession of a gun does not cause an otherwise law-abiding person to become a criminal. Those who break the laws against committing murder will also break the laws against being armed in "gun free zones", causing those who obey the law to be helpless against them.

 

[soberups]

well that leaves pretty much no gun control whatsoever, doesn't it? And "Who's standard" is exactly what we are trying to determine. From the Bloombergs to the Nugents and everyone in between are literally millions of ideas and variations on those ideas. Constitutionally speaking, we have traditionally allowed the Supreme Court to decide the standards for the time.

I would have a lot more respect for Michael Bloomberg if he would just be honest and say that the 2nd Amendment ought to be repealed instead of pretending to support it while at the same time trying to pass laws that effectively negate it.

I would also have more respect for Bloomberg if he would practice what he preaches and only have unarmed guards protecting him.

Bottom line is, the man is an elitist hypocrite. He regards the citizens as mere subjects who should not even be allowed to possess 32 ounce cups of soda pop, much less guns. He denies his subjects the right to own guns while at the same being protected by armed guards.

Ted Nugent might be a loud-mouthed, obnoxious, misogynistic rock star, but at least he doesn't use his wealth and influence to try and control how I live my life.

 

[oldngray]

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...s-up-crimes-committed-with-guns-down-n1851342

Reality Check: Guns Sales Up, Crimes Committed With Guns Down

 

[728ups]

Being a gun owner in those places is no different than being an African American voter in Alabama in 1950. You may have had a constitutional right to vote under the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, but good luck actually exercising that right. Good luck getting past the "reasonable, common sense" poll taxes and literacy tests that were deliberately designed to disenfranchise and deny you your rights.

A "Constitutional right" that you cannot actually exercise is not a right at all.

comparing gun ownership to Segregation is HYSTERICAL!!! it's rare that I actually Laugh Out Loud but that is a belly buster!!!

 

[728ups]

Missouri Town Bans Open Carry of Guns Because it’s Bad for Tourism

In a 4-2 vote on Tuesday, a southwest Missouri community has taken a sensible approach to firearms safety and banned the open carry of guns, according to a report from theMissourian. Thanks to a Missouri state law that allows cities to regulate the open carry and discharge of firearms, Lake of the Ozarks is going to be much safer for families!

The reasoning is simple: the people of Lake of the Ozarks spoke out against the practice of openly displaying one’s auxiliary penis, and the Board of Aldermen voted to protect the community.

The ban was proposed by police chief Mark Maples in response to concerns of residents and business owners that open carry activists not only create an unsafe environment, but that allowing people who believe it is necessary to carry a firearm to protect oneself in the diaper aisle to walk around with a weapon are negatively impacting tourism.

“We’ve had a tough time over the years promoting Lake Ozark as a family area,” said Alderman Larry Buschjost, who voted for the ban. “We want you on the Strip with families, everywhere in Lake Ozark with families. We want you to bring your kids down here and let them loose. For the life of me, I don’t understand why I would have to carry any type of gun, concealed or otherwise. ”

Of course, your kids’ safety is easily trumped by the much-touted, rarely understood Second Amendment, according to Alderwoman Betsey Browning. She suggested an alternative: that businesses place signs on their doors to let people know guns are not welcome. She did not address how this helps keep the public safe outside of those businesses.

One audience member, Gail Maeder, was more direct. “Just because somebody felt scared is not a good enough reason to pass an ordinance that violates the Second Amendment,” she said.


However, despite the will of the people, a few strokes of Gov. Jay Nixon’s pen could undo the progress Lake of the Ozarks has made. A bill that passed the Senate legislature this year forbids cities from prohibiting the open carry of firearms if a person has a concealed carry permit, and would nullify any municipal ordinance denying open carry to people with the proper permits.

Nixon has not said whether he will veto the measure, but chances are that he will. Nixon is rated 58% by the National Rifle Association (in other words, he is half crazy), and signed a bill in 2010 that expands the “Castle Doctrine” to include fetuses, and allows business owners and farmers to use deadly force on their property without fear of answering for their actions. In 2011, Nixon signed legislation that lowered the age at which a person may obtain a concealed carry endorsement.

“As a gun owner and hunter, I support the Second Amendment rights of Missourians and oppose efforts to undermine them,” Gov. Nixon said. “That is why, as Governor, I have enacted legislation to expand gun rights, including bills to strengthen the Castle Doctrine and to allow more Missourians to carry concealed weapons. House Bill 533 is a sensible expansion of Missouri’s already strong protections for gun owners.”

Congratulations on taking a sensible step forward, Lake of the Ozarks! We hope is is not temporary.

 

[oldngray]

Missouri Town Bans Open Carry of Guns Because it’s Bad for Tourism

In a 4-2 vote on Tuesday, a southwest Missouri community has taken a sensible approach to firearms safety and banned the open carry of guns, according to a report from theMissourian. Thanks to a Missouri state law that allows cities to regulate the open carry and discharge of firearms, Lake of the Ozarks is going to be much safer for families!

The reasoning is simple: the people of Lake of the Ozarks spoke out against the practice of openly displaying one’s auxiliary penis, and the Board of Aldermen voted to protect the community.

The ban was proposed by police chief Mark Maples in response to concerns of residents and business owners that open carry activists not only create an unsafe environment, but that allowing people who believe it is necessary to carry a firearm to protect oneself in the diaper aisle to walk around with a weapon are negatively impacting tourism.

“We’ve had a tough time over the years promoting Lake Ozark as a family area,” said Alderman Larry Buschjost, who voted for the ban. “We want you on the Strip with families, everywhere in Lake Ozark with families. We want you to bring your kids down here and let them loose. For the life of me, I don’t understand why I would have to carry any type of gun, concealed or otherwise. ”

Of course, your kids’ safety is easily trumped by the much-touted, rarely understood Second Amendment, according to Alderwoman Betsey Browning. She suggested an alternative: that businesses place signs on their doors to let people know guns are not welcome. She did not address how this helps keep the public safe outside of those businesses.

One audience member, Gail Maeder, was more direct. “Just because somebody felt scared is not a good enough reason to pass an ordinance that violates the Second Amendment,” she said.

However, despite the will of the people, a few strokes of Gov. Jay Nixon’s pen could undo the progress Lake of the Ozarks has made. A bill that passed the Senate legislature this year forbids cities from prohibiting the open carry of firearms if a person has a concealed carry permit, and would nullify any municipal ordinance denying open carry to people with the proper permits.

Nixon has not said whether he will veto the measure, but chances are that he will. Nixon is rated 58% by the National Rifle Association (in other words, he is half crazy), and signed a bill in 2010 that expands the “Castle Doctrine” to include fetuses, and allows business owners and farmers to use deadly force on their property without fear of answering for their actions. In 2011, Nixon signed legislation that lowered the age at which a person may obtain a concealed carry endorsement.

“As a gun owner and hunter, I support the Second Amendment rights of Missourians and oppose efforts to undermine them,” Gov. Nixon said. “That is why, as Governor, I have enacted legislation to expand gun rights, including bills to strengthen the Castle Doctrine and to allow more Missourians to carry concealed weapons. House Bill 533 is a sensible expansion of Missouri’s already strong protections for gun owners.”

Congratulations on taking a sensible step forward, Lake of the Ozarks! We hope is is not temporary.

Any time an article starts talking about "sensible" solutions it means they are disregarding facts and appealing to emotions.

 

[728ups]

74 school shootings in 18 months. One response? Bulletproof blankets
Bulletproof blankets
By Matthew T. Hall11 A.M.JUNE 10, 2014
School shootings like Tuesday's in Oregon are now so horribly common that an Oklahoma company is making bulletproof blankets for classroom students and teachers.

These $1,000 mats with backpack-like straps "are made with the same bullet-resistant materials that shield our soldiers in battle, providing maximum tested protection," according to a voiceover in a marketing video.

ProTecht, the manufacturer, says their "uncomplicated design, protective technology and light weight make it the best defense for children of all ages and classroom teachers." The video continues: "Every student and teacher in every school should have the protection from tornadoes and school incursions that Bodyguard Blankets provide."

Including Tuesday's deadly shooting, guns have been discharged at least 74 times on U.S. school campuses in the 18 months since 20 children and six adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. That's nearly one incident a week.

 

[728ups]

 

[BrownBrokeDown]

74 school shootings in 18 months. One response? Bulletproof blankets
Bulletproof blankets
By Matthew T. Hall11 A.M.JUNE 10, 2014
School shootings like Tuesday's in Oregon are now so horribly common that an Oklahoma company is making bulletproof blankets for classroom students and teachers.

These $1,000 mats with backpack-like straps "are made with the same bullet-resistant materials that shield our soldiers in battle, providing maximum tested protection," according to a voiceover in a marketing video.

ProTecht, the manufacturer, says their "uncomplicated design, protective technology and light weight make it the best defense for children of all ages and classroom teachers." The video continues: "Every student and teacher in every school should have the protection from tornadoes and school incursions that Bodyguard Blankets provide."

Including Tuesday's deadly shooting, guns have been discharged at least 74 times on U.S. school campuses in the 18 months since 20 children and six adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. That's nearly one incident a week.

I live in Oklahoma. Did you see the mention of protection from tornado in there. Yeah, this is 100% due to gun violence.

Trust me, everyone in this state realizes we are just as likely to die to a tornado as a LEGALLY OWNED GUN. The last sentence is not a facetious statement, but a factual.

 

[BrownBrokeDown]

There is the Moore tornado, countless others, as well as the Mannford F4 in 1984 on a Sunday thankfully that destoryed all 3 schools. See if you can find pictures of the schools online and imagine what would have happened if it had been on the following Monday.

 

[oldngray]

OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma company has created a protective blanket that developers say could give children a better chance of surviving debris from a tornado — or bullets from a 9 mm handgun.
Steve Walker developed the pad, The Oklahoman reported. Walker started on the idea after a massive tornado struck last year in Moore, killing 24 people including seven children inside an elementary school that didn’t have a tornado shelter
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/stat...ny-creates-blanket-for-tornado-protection.ece

So a blanket designed for tornado protection also provides some protection from handguns as a secondary use. Distortion by the anti gun media. Besides the fact schools are gun free zones so there are never any guns in there to worry about anyway.

 

[BrownBrokeDown]

I went to Mannford schools after that (started school the next fall). My parents pulled me out of Sunday school early that day due to the storms. There was 1 wall 4 ft tall left of the elementary. The high school was 75% gone. The roof of the middle school was damaged. Probably about 1000 to 1500 children at that time went to the 3 schools. You should see the video and photos we were shown every year at the elementary school in preperation for tornado season. If it had been the following day, there would have been close to 1000 children dead. A blanket like that wouldn't prevent crushing, but it would definately help with flying debris.

 

[BrownBrokeDown]

It really bothers me when politicians and political activists use things like this to try to prove a point. This is a multi-use device to protects kids. Its not a bullet-proof vest that can be used in other things. I want to give some examples why this would only be a help against a gunman, but that they can get around it, but as I started typing I felt really uncomfortable with it. I know what you will read into that, but your wrong. It's the knowledge that I have kids and the only way to stop one of these gunman 100% is to drop them. Gun restrictions won't do it. Outlawing guns won't do it. Putting them in the ground will. I don't necessarily agree with arming the teachers, but I would agree with security at all schools. Whether it is private security, or police. Unfortunately, most schools are underfunded as it stands right now. But that is another issue. Let me ask you something else. The government wants to control our lives and in places are getting ridiculous with it (eg no 32 oz pops), but they won't fund schools properly. What exactly are the governments priorities? Oh yeah, giving billions to countries that hate us. Overpaying on public works. Spending millions on grants that shouldn't be paid out (eg what was that solar company that got funded then went bankrupt). Spending all their time arguing on factions ideoligies, rather than doing what they are paid for, which is working together for the public good. Screw the schools though, right?

 

[BrownBrokeDown]

2 more thoughts...

1.) bring your fists to a knife fight and you will be cut up or killed 999 times out of 1000, and bring fists, knife, or pepper spray to a gun fight and you will be shot 999 times out of 1000 and they will continue to shoot others. The one time the pepper spray worked was an aberration, not the norm. When a perp has a gun, do the cops go for their gun, taser, or pepper spray?

and to go along with it

2.)how many of the school shooters used guns they actually owned, and how many used other peoples. Most of the ones I remember hearing this information on, the shooters were using someone elses guns. Additional gun puchasing laws aren't the issue. It's 1.)guns that are on the "black market" and 2.)people locking up their guns properly.

 

[BrownBrokeDown]

2 more thoughts...

1.) bring your fists to a knife fight and you will be cut up or killed 999 times out of 1000, and bring fists, knife, or pepper spray to a gun fight and you will be shot 999 times out of 1000 and they will continue to shoot others. The one time the pepper spray worked was an aberration, not the norm. When police see a gun, do they go for their gun or their pepper spray?

and to go along with it

2.)how many of the school shooters used guns they actually owned, and how many used other peoples. Most of the ones I remember hearing this information on, the shooters were using someone elses guns. Additional gun puchasing laws aren't the issue. It's 1.)guns that are on the "black market" and 2.)people locking up their guns properly.

 

[bbsam]

The constitution isn't enough.

Just ask the law-abiding citizens of places like Chicago, New York City, San Francisco or Washington DC how well the 2nd Amendment has "protected" their right to own guns.

That "right" has been literally buried beneath a mountain of "reasonable, common sense" restrictions, regulations, bans, fees and licensing requirements that are specifically designed by oppressive state and city governments to prevent that right from actually being exercised by the citizenry.

Being a gun owner in those places is no different than being an African American voter in Alabama in 1950. You may have had a constitutional right to vote under the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, but good luck actually exercising that right. Good luck getting past the "reasonable, common sense" poll taxes and literacy tests that were deliberately designed to disenfranchise and deny you your rights.

A "Constitutional right" that you cannot actually exercise is not a right at all.

One of my best friends from high school is a law abiding gun owner in Chicago. Not once has he made any mention of his rights being trampled on. It becomes part of the culture, like getting used to traffic jams and pan handlers. He bought his first SKS just before the assault weapons ban.