Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@Baldimo,

It was really not enough time to make any statement to your question because the rule didn't go into effect until December of 2016 and congress voted to repeal it in February of 2017.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

he did have an arsenal so, Im not certain whther the law was even in effect long enough to have any effect. So your attempt at string hanging is based on an assertion that he wasnt prevented from buying a gun??

He did obtain his recentest guns "lgally and without any obstructions" so ither the law wasnt in effect or it wasnt even being observed.
So where does that leave our respective stories??

1. (Yours) "Lets not have any laws to prevent mentally ill o other criminals from obtaining guns-because they dont work?"

OR

2. (MINE). Laws should include controls on purchases of guns by people that shouldnt have them bcause they pose a danger to the rest of us AND Control the types of higher lethality weapons that can be sold to everybody.

OF COURSE the NRA would be against any of these(including going on record today that they wont support minimum ages for "weapons of war typs of guns")

NRA is your silent AHAB. You folks dance to what they say and they say what the gun manufacturers tell em to say.

FOLLOW THE MONEY

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

PS, if you say its all a matter of enforcement of isting law, then e should make all political jobs in a state tie to enforcement performance by executive branch politicians.
I also would like to see the political careers f legislators tied to laws that are effective in controlling gun deaths . We cant have more generations of buck passing . maybe these new kids stirring the pot will get something boiling/.

Im kinda ashamed as one of the old "baby boom" generation, we are the ones who now stand in the way of any effective gun laws that help insure our citizens safety. Aint that ironic, after all that walkin we did to nd the Vietnam War we are the problem in a similarly deadly event

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

he did have an arsenal so, Im not certain whther the law was even in effect long enough to have any effect. So your attempt at string hanging is based on an assertion that he wasnt prevented from buying a gun??

It seems that law only applied to people who were receiving SS, am I wrong? It's the SS admin who passes along information to the background check system is it not? If he wasn't collecting SS, the non-law, would have had no effect on him.

Quote:

He did obtain his recentest guns "lgally and without any obstructions" so ither the law wasnt in effect or it wasnt even being observed.
So where does that leave our respective stories??

The Baker Law was already in effect and should have been used. Local law enforcement and the FBI already had reports on this guy, not to mention the school also knew and reported this guy as a problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Mental_Health_Act

Quote:

1. (Yours) "Lets not have any laws to prevent mentally ill o other criminals from obtaining guns-because they dont work?"

I've never said this, don't put words into my mouth.
I've been one of those people from the beginning that said this was a mental health issue, and we should be addressing it as such. My son had some issues towards the end of last year with depression, I removed all my guns but one, a semi-auto hand gun which is secured in a small safe (bolted to the floor) under my bed, from the house and they currently are at a friends house.

Quote:

2. (MINE). Laws should include controls on purchases of guns by people that shouldnt have them bcause they pose a danger to the rest of us AND Control the types of higher lethality weapons that can be sold to everybody.

We agree with the first part but not the second part.

Quote:

OF COURSE the NRA would be against any of these(including going on record today that they wont support minimum ages for "weapons of war typs of guns")

You are wrong again. The NRA from the start has said mental health is THE issue here, not the guns. They agree with the first part just like you do, they don't think it should be done without due process, that is the sticking point. The non-law signed by Obama directing the SS admin to restrict people who couldn't manage their finances as well as people on the no-fly-list from guns, had no due process and shouldn't have been done, especially in the last days of his administration as a desperate ploy to appear to do something on gun control.

Quote:

NRA is your silent AHAB. You folks dance to what they say and they say what the gun manufacturers tell em to say.

You folks... that makes me laugh. You only say this because they, and by extension you mean me, stand in your way of restricting the 2nd Amendment. Do you really think the money they donate, which is not that much, it's far less than what the banks/finance groups donated to Hillarys campaign. It was reported that Rubio received $9,000, that sounds like chump change for the level of influence you think they have over our politicians.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

PS, if you say its all a matter of enforcement of isting law, then e should make all political jobs in a state tie to enforcement performance by executive branch politicians.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Quote:

I also would like to see the political careers f legislators tied to laws that are effective in controlling gun deaths . We cant have more generations of buck passing . /.

If I understand you correctly you are saying that politicians keeping their jobs should be based on how effect their gun control laws are? If they pass no laws they lose their jobs and new people are appointed or elected?

If this is what you are saying, isn't that what we do already except it is based on all the laws they do or don't pass? Isn't that why we vote in the first place?

Quote:

maybe these new kids stirring the pot will get something boiling

I'll be damned if our country is going to be ruled by a bunch of know nothing kids. You old geezers might be ready to give up the farm... but there are still a bunch of people between you old folks and those young kids. They will have to wait their turn to have any real power, they don't even have half an understanding of how the real world works, they shouldn't be passing laws. Sure, you'll back them because they agree with your political agenda but you would dismiss those same kids if they agreed with me. The difference between you and I is that I would feel the same way about a kid who agreed with my agenda, wait your turn to rule the world, it's my generations turn.

Quote:

Im kinda ashamed as one of the old "baby boom" generation, we are the ones who now stand in the way of any effective gun laws that help insure our citizens safety. Aint that ironic, after all that walkin we did to nd the Vietnam War we are the problem in a similarly deadly event

I see once again that you disavow the generation behind you, my age group, and defer to the much younger kids who you can brain wash. Take a seat old man, we Gen X'ers have this now, the millennials can have their turn in about 15-20 years, when they have lived a little bit and really experience what goes on. They have to move out of their parents homes first and enter the work force before I will give them an ounce of respect on their opinions, right now they are just spouting what their teachers and professors have been feeding them.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

since you seem to want to annoint whoever is successful at making this a culture war, I say, we are seeking nothing more than a safe environment and the kids seem to be the only ones ready to walk the bridge.

Parents of the kids at Newtown werent able to consolidate ANYTHING into a successful issue driven (not culture driven).
David Brooks said it today that GOP wants this to be a culture war becuse they can drag guys like you out to tickle the base.
I think reasonable change in gun law and gun design can accomplish what everybody wants , safety and still maintain our freedoms. I dont think name calling gets us anywhere. It may work for you because your base is only one issue wide.

Quote:

PS, if you say its all just a matter of enforcement of existing laws, then we should make all political jobs in a state tie to enforcement performance by executive branch politicians

What Im saying is that the branch of govt in chrge of nforcing all the existing gun laws should be held responsible (like what the hell was the enforcement lapse that we saw at Parklan)

1The security officers (armed) were nowhere near the shooter or doing any kind of security.

2Turns out that the entire security cam system was 26 minutes behind real time. WHAAA? so when the cops did show up, the shooter was 26 minutes ahead of where the cops were . They were calling for reinforcement or guns drawn while the kid was already gone.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Quote:

their jobs should be based on how effect(ive) their gun control laws are? If they pass no laws they lose their jobs and new people are appointed or elected?

.

Not only gun control but problem solving in such murders. None of thi GOP crap of "its too early to talk about gun control" Thats a cop-out. If such an issue shows up again (and it will if it all staus quo), the votes should be cast as reminder that the politicians sat on their asses and let our kids get mowed down without doing anything.
SHAME on all of us!!

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

2Turns out that the entire security cam system was 26 minutes behind real time. WHAAA? so when the cops did show up, the shooter was 26 minutes ahead of where the cops were . They were calling for reinforcement or guns drawn while the kid was already gone.

6 minutes in and out

a 26 minute delay

even with no delay there wasn't much hope of getting ahead of Cruz

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

since you seem to want to annoint whoever is successful at making this a culture war, I say, we are seeking nothing more than a safe environment and the kids seem to be the only ones ready to walk the bridge.

Culture war? Who said anything about a culture war. Gun culture vs anti-gun culture? These kids want the same thing the rest of the anti-gun left wants, restrictions on the 2nd Amendment that will lead to a gun ban when the laws you want don't solve the issue.

Quote:

Parents of the kids at Newtown werent able to consolidate ANYTHING into a successful issue driven (not culture driven).

Sure they were, they were able to get bans passed in their own state. I don't think you can buy an AR-15 or simular type weapon there.

Quote:

David Brooks said it today that GOP wants this to be a culture war becuse they can drag guys like you out to tickle the base.

Sorry to tell you, but I'm not part of the GOP's base and haven't been for 2 election cycles now.

Quote:

I think reasonable change in gun law and gun design can accomplish what everybody wants , safety and still maintain our freedoms.

What is reasonable about banning AR-15 type rifles? No matter what you say it is not a military type rifle any more than a semi-auto none pistol grip stock is. What is reasonable about banning a pistol grip? My mini 14 Ranch rifle shoots the same exact ammo, takes a removable magazine and fires one bullet with each trigger pull, the only difference is that it doesn't have a pistol grip stock or a bayonet lug. Why ban bayonet lugs, have then been a rash of bayonet attacks? Are you going to ban optics on them as well, only allow iron sights like in basic training? This is why it's hard to take any "reasonable" gun control talk seriously. Those of us who know about guns have a hard time understanding the reasoning behind these non-lethal options.

Quote:

I dont think name calling gets us anywhere.

Just think how many times people such as myself have been called butchers, killers and other such wonderful terms just because we won't give in and allow pointless restrictions. Did you watch the CNN "town hall", that farce of a meeting. It was nothing but a NRA/gun rights hate fest. I'm sure since you agreed with them, you didn't mind their name calling.

Quote:

It may work for you because your base is only one issue wide.

I'm going to assume you meant "one issue side"?
That's laughable. The only "one side issue" is the demand to ban "military death machines", reason on the topic of guns doesn't phase most of you because you ignore any facts about guns you don't agree with.

When mass shootings continue with hand guns, are they next on the list? It's an honest question, the shooter at Virginia Tech didn't have an AR-15, and that one had more deaths than the FL school shooting. When the next school shooting happens with handguns, will you demand a ban on semi-auto handguns?

Quote:

What Im saying is that the branch of govt in chrge of nforcing all the existing gun laws should be held responsible (like what the hell was the enforcement lapse that we saw at Parklan)

There are gun laws at all level of govt, from the local city, maybe county, state up to the Federal level. You are speaking about the Executive Branch at each of those levels.

Quote:

1The security officers (armed) were nowhere near the shooter or doing any kind of security.

From what I know, it was a single "Resource Officer" assigned to the school and he hid outside when the shooting started. He was worthless and failed his job to keep the kids safe, he has since been fired. Should we fire his boss as well, the chief of police or the mayor?

Quote:

2Turns out that the entire security cam system was 26 minutes behind real time. WHAAA? so when the cops did show up, the shooter was 26 minutes ahead of where the cops were . They were calling for reinforcement or guns drawn while the kid was already gone.

I'm not sure what either of those have to do with the nation as a whole though or why 16 year old kids from FL should decide National policy when it sounds like there was plenty of failure at the local level.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

It’s not a military type weapon? The same gun designed specifically FOR the military. Gun’s amd Ammo disagrees with you.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Not only gun control but problem solving in such murders.

Isn't this why we have elections?

Quote:

None of thi GOP crap of "its too early to talk about gun control" Thats a cop-out.

Gun control will not solve the mental health issue. A majority of these mass shooters had mental issues. It's a cop-out to think banning semi-auto guns is going to keep people from killing people. The idea to have trained and armed teachers isn't a bad one. You'll laugh at it but that is the cop-out.

Quote:

If such an issue shows up again (and it will if it all staus quo), the votes should be cast as reminder that the politicians sat on their asses and let our kids get mowed down without doing anything.

Once again, this is why we have elections. We will also remember the votes of those who only wanted gun bans and no other solutions.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Go ask a soldier if they would carry a civilian issue AR-15 into a war zone and tell me their answer.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

That’s irrelevant to the “self-describred” type of the weapon.

A soldier wouldn’t go into battle with a musket either, but back in the day, that was the type.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

We will remember? The entire problem with the NRA/Gun manufacturers lobby is that they buy Congress. If has nothing to do with a significant voting bloc.

Of course, if those weenies in the Democratic Party actually manage to take over the Congress in the mid-term election this year, I suspect you'll be pissing and moaning and ranting about voter fraud and stolen elections.

2 Replies

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

The rule pertained to people who receive social security checks through mental illness to the extent they can't handle their financials.

No. The rule covered everyone who receives social security checks and can't handle their financials. No limitations to mental illness.

revelette1 wrote:

I won't respond again,

Of course. You've boxed yourself into a corner by sticking to an untrue claim, and you lack the integrity to admit that you are wrong.

revelette1 wrote:

you just ignore facts

Nope. I post facts. You're the one who is ignoring them.

revelette1 wrote:

keep going on what you want to say regardless.

What I want is to tell the truth, just as always.

revelette1 wrote:

You sir, are not credible.

Your refusal to accept reality will not make reality stop being true.

Ostriches may believe this when they hide their heads (I wonder if they really do that?), but they are wrong.

1 Reply

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

From what I can understand, the focus was on those received social security due to mental illness and had a representative to manage his/her affairs, including the checks.

No such focus. It covered people who receive Social Security for any reason, if they do not handle their own finances.

revelette1 wrote:

It further focused in that group, those who were deemed to be a danger to society and that information was sent to the FBI database for background checks.

No such focus there either.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

You folks dance to what they say and they say what the gun manufacturers tell em to say.

Exactly the opposite. The gun manufacturers do what we tell them, not the other way around.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

It’s not a military type weapon? The same gun designed specifically FOR the military. Gun’s amd Ammo disagrees with you.

The military uses guns with either full-auto capability or three-shot-bursts.

The military doesn't use versions that are semi-auto-only.

It's a pretty important distinction.

What's all the fuss about military weapons anyway? The English longbow is a military weapon and I have the right to have one of those.

The Glock 17 is also a military weapon and the Heller ruling confirms that I have an undisputed right to have one of those.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

We will remember? The entire problem with the NRA/Gun manufacturers lobby is that they buy Congress. If has nothing to do with a significant voting bloc.

Just the opposite. The NRA's power is entirely due to their voters.

The NRA is also not the gun manufacturers lobby. The gun manufacturers are represented by the NSSF.

I suppose whether the defenders of civil rights are a problem is a matter of opinion.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

It’s not a military type weapon? The same gun designed specifically FOR the military. Gun’s amd Ammo disagrees with you.

You know that the ones designed for the military are full auto, and that the ones for sale to civilians are not. Yes, you knew that. So why did you post something that misrepresents the truth? Don't answer, as it was a rhetorical question.

0 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know