34 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
and of those human shadow images
how many would not be there if the current suggestion of restrictions had already been enacted, enforced and (most importantly) obeyed? Guesses acceptable.
All the accidental deaths and all the kids would be alive.
Which is why I find this issue compelling and important. That's a lot of families scarred for life.
It seems to me that accidental deaths by themselves are a compelling argument for stricter rules about guns and their storage. The Canadian Gun Registry was cancelled by the Conservatives, but the regulations for firearms storage and the secure storage of ammunition are still in force, I believe (but I'm not sure). Separate locks and keys. I also don't know what the rules are in England, but do know that France's gun laws are less restrictive than Britain's.
Did all these accidental deaths come from
military assault rifles with large capacity cartridges or guns purchased by mentally ill persons who had not received proper background checks? I think not. The current proposals don't cover accidental deaths caused by the discharge of legally owned and available weapons.
they like to use
unusual events to create unusually bad laws.
Show me numbers that would be saved above current progress
"The accidental gun death rate has been falling since 1930..."
If the article is correct, the majority of young people killed by guns happen as a result of gang activity related to drugs. What will the new gun control measures do to curb this threat? and how many of these deaths are otherwise innocent ones caught in the crossfire, sitting in their living rooms, etc? Find a way to stop this from happening and you'll make a significant impact on gun related deaths. Make more laws? That doesn't seem to work.
for the purpose of debate on gun control
I wonder how many were killed by pistols vs rifles.
I also wonder how many were killed during the commission of crime. It does identify one drive by shooting because a child was killed.
Even if every non-criminal citizen in the US agreed today to eliminate guns, it would be almost impossible for years.
I'm not advocatng that BTW.
True. Any un-baking of this particular political cake will
take decades, but that's not a reason not to try. The Australian experience is instructive though not easily directly comparable, because gun ownership and gun violence was not nearly so ingrained there nor enshrined in an ill-conceived founding principle. If the Founding Fathers could see what guns have cost the American people in the past 230+ years, I don't think the Second Amendment would be so ambiguous or so absolute. I'm quite sure it would still be there, just worded differently.
Stokely Carmichael (not a preferred source but even an idiot can get one thing right) said "Guns are as American as Apple Pie." While true, Apple Pies are not generally as lethal.
apple seeds contain cynaide
>>>>>>If the Founding Fathers could see what guns have cost the American people in the past 230+ years, I don't think the Second Amendment would be so ambiguous or so absolute>>>>>>>
And if Henry Ford knew how many people would be killed because of his invention, would we still be riding horseback today? BTW........with a speed limit imposed in every state of at most 70 MPH, why is it so important to continue to manufacture automobiles that can go over 100 MPH and nobody says anything about it?
A lot of people were killed on horseback as well.
Doing things they should, or things they shouldn't?
It's all the damned snakes' fault
so we have to ban them, too, for causing those horses to rear up and dump the riders on their heads........
And cowboy gunslingers
I recently watched an old episode of the "Cisco Kid" and remember the show as a young boy. These guys could shoot a guy at full speed on a horse and he'd be dead before hitting the ground. No horses were ever harmed in these old shows. Pancho (Leo Carillo) was a faithful but somewhat bumbling sidekick of Cisco in that series which, in today's world, would offer a negative stereotype that would cause some to shriek in horror. "How dare anyone air such awful programs!" might be the rant. Yeah...watching that stuff really messed us up. We'd have been better off growing up with today's offerings of non-stop sex and violence.
"Aunt Jemima", "Amos and Andy", "Sanford & Son", "Jack Benny", to name a few...........
and the horrible thing said by....
...Hopalong Cassidy, when at end of program he'd urge kids to attend sunday school. Roy Rogers did too. Lone Ranger urged belief in the Creator, etc.
Sometimes doing things they shouldn't
I have an ancestor that went through the Civil War and was killed afterward when his horse shied and he fell off and died.
Horses don't always do what you tell them to. I've been thrown and still have damage to one leg from it.
I'm told there are enough out there now
to turn your "years" into "never".
When I saw THIS
I thought, perhaps they SHOULD hold pro gun rallies instead.
If anyone was planning to rob JC Penny...he'd be the first person to get shot?
Utah man protests Obama's gun control plan by carrying an assault rifle at J.C. Penney
Does he need a Concealed Carry Permit?
Doesn't his actions make it more probably that a person with ill intent might be able to walk around and not draw suspicion/attention to themselves?
He had an agenda?
Looks like the Daily News does as well. They chose to use some cell phone photo to advance their cause but without a direct quote or comprehensive statement to support their allegation that the gun was carried as a protest. So while the 2nd amendment is the issue here, it appears that the 1st amendment is working just fine.
Those darn gunowners they also jump to conclusions
Gun owners: Man's actions hurt us
RIVERDALE — The man who walked into the Riverdale JC Penney store Wednesday with an assault rifle strapped to his back and a pistol clipped to his belt negatively affected gun owners by making his political statement, according to local leaders.
"The guy is an idiot, and I am a big gun right's supporter," said Rep. Paul Ray, R-Clinton.
The man's actions hurt gun owners, the majority of whom are conscientious, Ray said.
It was strictly a political statement, Ray said.
But the person he may have most put in jeopardy was himself, Ray said, by walking into the store with an assault rifle strapped to his back.
Other proponents of gun ownership agree.
"There is no question he is within his rights to carry a firearm. Is he breaking the law? No. But logic would tell you he is creating a situation where others are put in fear," Rep. Brad Dee, R-Washington Terrace.
The man carrying the assault weapon has that right based on the law,
I take it you have absolutely no problems with his actions....Never mind WHY he did it.
Notice, the gun owner referred to it as an "assault weapon".
While it's not something I'd ever do and I would
wonder why anyone would, it would be wrong of me to presume what his motive was and then publish it. Apparently, our first amendment doesn't require verification of what is factual before something can go to press.
RE: it would be wrong of me to presume
So, there is absolutely nothing that you would ever presume unless you heard the person say it, hearsay evidence is also out of the question.
Unless you hear it in person...it didn't happen...you know how they can manipulate video and audio now a days.
Since you don't "presume" anything I guess you would have no feelings or apprehension about a stranger with a loaded weapon sitting next to you in church.
You are so full of it....
Good will that is.
I expect that the lady who took out her
cell phone to snap the photo didn't feel immediately threatened by the man. Apparently, neither did anyone else...at least enough to call police. The gun was said to have been unloaded and legal to carry in that manner. I'd agree that it may have been foolish. Foolishness isn't anything new in making political statements if that's what it was. People on both sides of the issue, IMO, make both sensible and nonsensical remarks. Enjoy the fun and learn when to duck.
Do you think there will be any people exercising
their 2nd amendment rights at the Inauguration?
Well...you just might see a few bare arms.
I'll bet you won't see anyone "with a set"
as Toni refers to them....
Packing heat at the Inauguration.....THAT'S where you show the strength of your conviction.
Not a good idea to joke about IMO, JP. Rob
No one has to grow a set in DC
because they would be arrested immediately with or without the inauguration because DC and Chicago *until NYC last week* have the strictest gun laws in the country and still have the highest gun crime rates also in the country. Whereas Utah citizens are legally allowed to carry "unloaded" rifles, including a firearm strapped to their bodies, as long as they are in plain sight......no need for a 'concealed weapon' permit. Just as hunters have mounted rifle/gun racks in their pickup trucks along the back windows.
>>>Utah allows for open carry of unloaded firearms without a concealed firearm permit. "Unloaded" as it applies here, means that there is no round in the firing position (or chamber), and the firearm is at least two "mechanical actions" from firing. As carrying the firearm with the chamber empty, but with a full magazine, meets this definition (the handler must chamber a round, and then pull the trigger), this is a common work around for Utah residents who do not wish to acquire a permit. Without the permit, the firearm must be clearly visible.>>>
It is also a "Stand Your Ground" State........and is one of two states that allows for permit holders to enter a K-12 school with the gun.
what we've give for
..... a string of firecrackers? Quickest way to find out where all the SS guys are, lol.
RE: Utah allows for open carry of unloaded firearms
Utah allows for open carry of unloaded firearms
IF they had the Academy Awards and the Red Carpet in Utah, When someone hollers
"WHO ARE YOU WEARING?'
The response would be?
Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine and a Glock 17 Gen 2 W/4 17 Round.
It's not a weapon....It's a fashion statement.
Back to Speakeasy Forum
(Page 1 of 2)