Here are some facts I can interject into the discussion:I have a
co-worker who is a gun "advocate", who has told us all he suffers from
Aspergers syndrome, has an AR-15, likes to play around with explosives, and is a
strong, strong believer in an array of conspiracy theories (such as jet
contrails emitting mind control chemicals) and actively is recruiting coworkers
to arms in an inevitable civil uprising against the Obama regime he claims will
happen within two years.He also admits to being disgruntled,
(delusionally) thinks he should be leading the department, and because the word
got around that he wears a concealed weapon, has a very strong dampening effect
on any discussions where he has an opinion. This is all quite
legal, but because he's armed and carrying he's gone from being just
an "interesting" co-worker to being pretty disruptive just because
everyone will do and say whatever they need to to make sure he doesn't
snap. Being an ex-Marine deployed in Iraq doesn't help things.What are the rights of everyone else in this situation? We should get guns,
Are any "gun debate" issues going to matter?Bad Guy path to
guns1) Buy a 3D printer. 2) Download Template for Gun and
bullets.3) Print Gun and Bullets.4) Print more guns and bullets to
make $ to recoup cost for #1.5) Go use 3D printed gun in some crime.6) Laugh at gun debate that will still be going on that like many debate going
on right now will change fast when some new technology changes things.U.S. gov't will try to restrict 3D printers next. They will become so
small that smuggling them inside the US will become the next big thing and easy
thing to do. We have to realize something that we should have long ago. If bad
guys want to do things, they are going to be able to find ways to do it.
(Suggested reading "The Problem of Cell 13"). We need to be ready and
have a citizenship ready to stop them.
10CC, unfortunately most of us can probably identify one or two acquaintances
very much like the one you describe.Have you gone to talk with
anyone in law enforcement? If not -- DO IT!But you will probably
get the same reply I've received a couple of times: "Is he a felon?
No? Well, sorry, there's nothing we can do."
Great article, exposing the gun control advocates for what they really are.Sadly, with Senator Feinstein's attitude, that veterans are all
mentally ill, we can see why we will never make any progress on PROPERLY
identifying those with REAL MENTAL ILLNESS, that would make it so they
shouldn't have guns. It would just be another window for the abuse of
power.But if democrats think that they, themselves, are not safe to
own firearms, they are free to give them up, even sell them for money. What a
The Manchin-Toomey bill says "Congress supports and reaffirms the existing
prohibition on a national firearms registry.” And it also says:
“Nothing in this title, or any amendment made by this title, shall be
construed to…allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a Federal
firearms registry.” So just how does expanded background checks via the
Toomey-Manchin bill create a national registery?
Excellent article! But don't pay any attention to the facts here, some
people don't care about facts, they only want to advance their agendas and
facts just get in their way.
10cc just perfectly described the atmosphere that the NRA wants to create.
Because the only alternative folks like 10cc have, is to arm themselves. And if
you're the NRA, you know what that means!!! More $$$Asking the
NRA for solutions is like asking Pizza Hut for a solution to our nation's
obesity problem. Of course they're going to say, "Eat more pizza!"
But that doesn't mean it will help anything. Likewise,
conducting an arms race within our own society will not have a positive effect
on our own society.
Another ignored fact is that what we've done so far isn't working.
let's try something else, even if it's just for giggles, and see what
Excellent op-ed by Allan South! SOlid facts, well presented!@ 10cc-
Your co-worker is a mental health issue, not a gun issue. If his condition is
not serious enough to get him committed, then work on changing the mental health
laws. Yes, he would scare me too, but even crazy people have rights, so if
unwilling to involuntarily commit him, then he is a free man to won guns.... and
to vote!@Pragmatist- Manchin-Toomey had the prohibition against
keeping the records as registration, but the problem is that it put in place the
universal data collection that actually collects everything to create universal
registration of all guns and gun owners. Given the untrustworthiness of the
Obama Justice Department, or the opportunity for sneaky Congressional trickery
to delete the prohibition, merely having the machinery in place is an
unacceptable step down that slippery slope.When the leftist
gun-grabbers tell you they want registration and even confiscation, believe
them! And, then oppose every incremental step they demand that will get them
closer to their goals.Remember, courts ruled that drug dealers did
not have to register illegal drugs, so criminals will NOT register their illegal
I recently heard on the radio the a 16 year old man's wife was being
threatened. So he went to the gun store to buy a pistol for his wife. It was
then he found out that he was not legally able to buy a gun. when he was a
teenager he had gotten into a fight with his brother. Sommeone had called the
police they came and he was arrested and charged with a violent offense. That
has happened decades ago. but because of this offense he was denied.Not only that he was charged and convicted of trying to buy a gun as a person
who was ineligible. when he tried to explain he didn't know he was
ineligible because this was a minor thing that happened so long ago. the
prosecutor and the judge said that he should have known.The current
background system does not deserve to be expanded. it needs to be fixed first.
it is being used as a tool to deny good people there right to have a gun.
"Proposed legislation would not have prevented any of the incidents at the
forefront of current controversy, and it would effectively create a registration
database."First off... we have 30,000 gun deaths a year. Do the
29,974 non-Newtown deaths not matter? Besides, a bunch of kids ran away from the
shooter when he was reloading and the Tuscon shooter was stopped when he had to
reload. Seeing as they both had the "largest capacity clip legally
available" it is safe to assume that had high capacity magazines been banned
they would've been using the smaller ones and more people would be alive.
So this first point isn't even correct anyway. Secondly, the
provision bans the creation of such a database (makes it a felony) and merely
makes the current background check system apply to more instances of purchases.
It'd be nice in an article about "facts" if the writer
would actually use facts.
And then the rest of this just goes into lunatic conspiracy theories. I swear
the fastest way to make people actually believe confiscation might be a good
idea is to show them the crazy stuff some gun owners believe.
cjb:Based on what I'm experiencing, I think the background
check needs to include a full psychological examination. People who are
delusional and paranoid probably should not be allowed to have guns, let alone
bring concealed weapons to work.
Lets follow the "facts" and logic here.1) The proposed
system would be "expensive, unmanageable and unenforceable, affecting only
law-abiding citizens"2) That same expensive, unusable system
caught about 76,000 transactions...... seems kind of usable... and already
working in some places... but lets not use it because those people were only
prevented, not arrested.... ok.3) "The stated goal of some of
those leading the charge for registration is to limit firearms and to prevent
further transfer, thereby eventually doing away with private ownership.... and
there are those who state they believe they have been probed by aliens
too....but we don't base policy on that, now do we.4)
"Historically, registration is a precursor to confiscation. It began that
way in Australia, England, Uganda, pre-World War II Germany" ummm... no
one is registering anything. Just like having back ground checks for people
who work in schools is "registering" them.5) "Leading
registration proponents are often hypocritical, possessing personal defense
firearms themselves" - which a sane person would conclude they are not anti
gun... just saying.The rest just gets odd. What percentage of gun
owners have had actually to draw in self defense... it just get sillier.
10CCBountiful, UTcjb:Based on what I'm
experiencing, I think the background check needs to include a full psychological
examination. People who are delusional and paranoid probably should not be
allowed to have guns, let alone bring concealed weapons to work.11:28 a.m. May 10, 2013===========It's funny --
I'm a veteran, and work at Hill AFB.We have all
sorts of weapons herer on base, but they are ALWAYS under lock and key in
the armory.We ALWAYS had to take and pass weapons trainging and
certifications, We ALL had to under-go back ground checks and mental
evaluations, andNO weapons - Conceled weapons carry permit or not --
are allowwed on base.A profession ALL about weapons, weaponry, and
weapon systems, and we have the most restrictions on weapons in the entire
United States of America.GO Figure!
DN Subscriber 2:You're saying we need to change the mental
health commitment laws to make people more easily committable? There is no
in-between status? Do we have enough space at the state hospital to commit all
the borderline wackos that may (or may not) go postal? That would cost tax
money.We can have people's drivers licenses suspended if they
demonstrate a danger in driving a car, but there's no way to do that if
somebody is a borderline threat with guns. Nice. My mother would not be
allowed to drive a semi truck, I'm sure. She can barely navigate the
streets on her own without getting on the freeway. But she's be perfectly
legal to walk around with an AR-15.Either somebody is a full-blown
danger to themselves or others, or they're perfectly fine carrying
concealed weapons just about anywhere they want. Why in the world are we
wasting money on psychological checks for police officers? For that matter, why
do we even spend money for training or firearms certification for police
officers? Aren't these requirements just a violation of their
individual 2nd Amendment rights?
Yes, MM, I agree: "Excellent article! But don't pay any attention to
the facts here, some people don't care about facts, they only want to
advance their agendas and facts just get in their way."The NRA
and their supporters never were much for factual information, were they?
DNSuuscriber..Given the untrustworthiness of the Obama Justice Department, or
the opportunity for sneaky Congressional trickery to delete the prohibition,
merely having the machinery in place is an unacceptable step down that slippery
slope. Even though the law requires that the information be destroyed within 24
hours..it's still that Obama, and pure, unadulterated, pristine, paranoia.
Yes one old man, fact have obviously confused you. If guns were used in
performing abortion, liberals would suddenly become the most staunch supporters
of the second amendment and the NRA would not be needed!
Senator Feinstein DID NOT say all vets are mentally ill accoding to Snopes.Laws never prevent ALL crime, yet we still feel it useful to enact them
in an attempt to deter some crime.Republicans and the NRA work to
weaken existing gun laws and make enforcement more difficult, such as blocking
the appointment of a Director of the ATF--going on 7 yrs.now. The
background check bill specifically STRENGTHENED laws prohibiting the creation of
a national registry.Some think tanks and conspiracy groups
perpetuate anarchy and treason as the way to resolve problems.
Mr. South, Here is a fact: if the Sandy Hook shooter had only a
muzzle-loader because that was the only gun accessible in his law-abiding
mother's home, he couldn't have killed more than one or two. This is the type of fact that resonates with reasonable people for reasonable
Re: ". . . if the Sandy Hook shooter had only a muzzle-loader because that
was the only gun accessible in his law-abiding mother's home, he
couldn't have killed more than one or two."Unless, of
course, he mounted a bayonet on his muzzle loader.And, that's a
fact.Here's another -- the real problem is not guns. It's
criminals.And, since it's impossible to prevent criminals'
access, efforts to restrict everyone's access are quixotic, at best,
fascistic, at worst. But, not even CLOSE to being smart.I know, I
know -- liberals being pro-crime and pro-criminal, they'll never go for a
solution that offends an important constituency in their "big tent"
strategy. Witness the fact that the top gun-crime areas nearly all lean left and
are considered "safely" Democrat. But there is a reasonable
solution out there -- enforce the laws currently on the books.If
liberals could just climb down from their high horse long enough to actually BE
concerned about real people, rather than just CLAIMING to be, they might
actually get something done.