I’m a gun owner, legal carrier of a CCW weapon. Why? To protect myself, family and other who can’t protect themselves in time of need and to support local law officers. I have used deadly force in my time in Vietnam and live with that anguish daily and pray never to be subject to using my weapon again. Those reasons are only a byproduct of the main American Right of the 2nd Amendment to ownership of weapons.

To blame the type of weapons for terrorist assaults, delusional individual planned action is the Political pondering for agenda gain and personal prosperity. The cowardly escape from the truth their policy, additional bills and alterative proposals are not the answer, they have been a failure to the citizen.

More Gun Control is a feel good, look at me and see what I’m doing response not the solution. Were the data base link between Educational Counselors, Social Services Counselors, Professional HIPPA Counselors and Law Enforcement that the critical solution to help those individual receive help and provide the proper support system to their families? Here is where the solution beings and the killing end.
This task is difficult and the Political reward minimal.

The 2nd Amendment is the Citizen Right to own weapons for the protection from their Government not a foreign intruder but our own Government? Government that does not follow the Constitution, Government that alters the Constitution for the benefit of convenience, Government that threatens citizen and their property, Government that does not adhere to the laws presently establish, Government that restrict their legal citizen to prosper, Government that does not protect it boarders and those Stated that boarding foreign land and a Government out of control of the daily operations in which it was designed. 2nd Amendment is the citizen protection from those Government Departments and Individual that have overstepped it functional operation to tyranny. Government agenda that limits the Freedoms of its Citizen in which America was founded is why the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment is in place. Our weapons are protection from the Public Servant we have elected and those assigned officials and the corruption they have pursued.

America gun laws are presently in place, doing just fine, Government is what needs to be controlled.

Why is Biden meeting with filmmakers and media types about gun violence? What qualifications do they have to add real value to the conversation? I understand meeting with the NRA, and perhaps even video game makers (which along the lines of the latter, filmmakers might make sense but it's really reaching).

Evidence that the "solution" will be a political one rather than practical (not that the latter is really possible).

^^^^I would say that filmmakers/TV producers are included because they make media that glorifies gun violence and desensitize people with graphic carnage.

ccrunner609;1363233 wrote:guns dont kill people, people kill people

This is the dumbest meme in the world. There are better arguments against gun regulation than this.

Atomic Bombs don't kill people. People Kill People.

BoatShoes;1363253 wrote:This is the dumbest meme in the world. There are better arguments against gun regulation than this.

Atomic Bombs don't kill people. People Kill People.

you DID see the FBI statistics that say that more people are murdered each year with knives, hammers, baseball bats and their fists than guns, didn't you? A tragedy occurs and millions of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS that have NEVER committed a crime are made to give up their 2nd amendment rights? Bullshit

tk421;1363312 wrote:you DID see the FBI statistics that say that more people are murdered each year with knives, hammers, baseball bats and their fists than guns, didn't you? A tragedy occurs and millions of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS that have NEVER committed a crime are made to give up their 2nd amendment rights? Bullshit

Again, it's not that hard to research the claims you hear from pro-gun folks to verify if they are true or not.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp

...Information gathered by the FBI does not support this claim.

For some reason I couldn't copy the text at the snopes page so you'll have to click for yourself that your assertions are not grounded in the truth.


They wouldn't be giving up their second amendment rights. The People would be instituting narrowly tailored regulations of that right because of a compelling interest in doing so...just as they do with the right of free speech.

ccrunner609;1363370 wrote:thanks for making my point. People use a atom bomb and people die but the act saves alot more, people kill people with guns only where the other people dont have guns themselves.

Ughh.

I don't even know how to respond to this...

The idea being that, well, since People kill people and not Atom Bombs as they're inanimate objects and can't form an intention what's the problem with letting everybody have atom bombs? It reduces the particular argument "inanimate objects don't kill" which is the underlying implication of the "guns don't kill people" argument to absurdity.

There are better arguments against gun control than that silly anecdote.

Will all of you get your head out of your ass for a minute. Gun control is not the answer. This is just a political chest beating exercise, that will accomplish nothing but enhance policatic party agenda.

The politician don't want to address the real issue. The care, support and identification of mental health issues in America. The stigma of mental health and the lack of support, tracking and prevention is what is the problem. The is no data base, no central HIPPA record data for the mentally delusional. If the mentality is to identify legal citizen with weapons and limit their rights as a means of prevention for gun violence. Indicating the weapons as the problem when in reality the real culprit in the unstable, mentally deranged individual. Address this issue and stop looking for media posturing a deal with the real problem with violence ..... mental health

Obesity is a terrible problem in this country. Spoons and forks should be banned for making people obese.

Spoons don't make people fat, people make people fat.

Belly is right....mental health is a big part of this....and the culture of American society driven by the media (Hollywood, TV video game industry.) Powerful guns have been around a long time, but the you never had the rash of shooting/massacres like you do now.
Joe Biden's Dog and Pony show is nothing more than window dressing so that poiticians can say "we are concerned and we are doing something". I am not an NRA member, nor a supporter...but they are entirely right in being disappointed in coming away from the meeting with the VP who they said was focused too heavily on guns, and not enough on the other issues. Clearly, this has become a copy cat phenomenon, with the constant media broadcasting and sensationalizing these crimes. The only meaningful way to increase the safety of our children is to provide school security capable of neutralizing the threats BEFORE they kill anyone. This , of course, is not the acceptable course for the left who are myopic on guns.

No way. We need to continue to pump our citizens full of psychotropic drugs and then vilify guns and law abiding gun owners when they finally decide to snap. It's the only logical option.

HitsRus;1363619 wrote:Belly is right....mental health is a big part of this....and the culture of American society driven by the media (Hollywood, TV video game industry.) Powerful guns have been around a long time, but the you never had the rash of shooting/massacres like you do now.
Joe Biden's Dog and Pony show is nothing more than window dressing so that poiticians can say "we are concerned and we are doing something". I am not an NRA member, nor a supporter...but they are entirely right in being disappointed in coming away from the meeting with the VP who they said was focused too heavily on guns, and not enough on the other issues. Clearly, this has become a copy cat phenomenon, with the constant media broadcasting and sensationalizing these crimes. The only meaningful way to increase the safety of our children is to provide school security capable of neutralizing the threats BEFORE they kill anyone. This , of course, is not the acceptable course for the left who are myopic on guns.

Seems to me that liberals would be on board with doing things to try to stop mentally unhealthy people from getting their hands on guns. But you and I both know that conservatives, the gun lobby, etc. would not get on board with the left in that approach either.

BoatShoes;1365998 wrote:Seems to me that liberals would be on board with doing things to try to stop mentally unhealthy people from getting their hands on guns. But you and I both know that conservatives, the gun lobby, etc. would not get on board with the left in that approach either.

The NRA has been blasting the lack of mental health record keeping and reporting since the VT shooting. They have been calling for strengthening and updating the system for years. Not sure where you get that opinion that they wouldn't be on board from.

BoatShoes;1365998 wrote:Seems to me that liberals would be on board with doing things to try to stop mentally unhealthy people from getting their hands on guns. But you and I both know that conservatives, the gun lobby, etc. would not get on board with the left in that approach either.

Clueless mofo.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/21/the-nra-wants-an-active-mental-illness-database-thirty-eight-states-have-that-now/


In his Friday morning news conference, National Rifle Association chief executive Wayne LaPierre floated the idea of a national registry of the mentally ill as one way to stem gun violence.

Belly35;1366022 wrote:Clueless mofo.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/21/the-nra-wants-an-active-mental-illness-database-thirty-eight-states-have-that-now/


In his Friday morning news conference, National Rifle Association chief executive Wayne LaPierre floated the idea of a national registry of the mentally ill as one way to stem gun violence.

Sure, they're posturing in the press but when push comes to shove to get something done they would not put their support behind it. For instance, the Affordable Care Act sought to provide funding for doctors to talk to patients with mental illness/depression etc. about proper gun use etc. and the NRA fought to get that removed. They never get serious about keeping "dangerous people" away from guns because that's the first step toward gun control, etc.

BoatShoes;1366318 wrote:For instance, the Affordable Care Act sought to provide funding for doctors to talk to patients with mental illness/depression etc. about proper gun use etc. and the NRA fought to get that removed. They never get serious about keeping "dangerous people" away from guns because that's the first step toward gun control, etc.

Whether the NRA supported this idea or not is inconsequential to me.

The issue that stands out to me is that some politician and/or bureaucrat actually took the time to seek taxpayer funding to pay doctors to discuss "proper gun use" with patients with mental illness.

DOCTOR: "OK, Mr. Loon, here's the deal. The state has decided you aren't mentally stable and could possibly cause harm to others. So I'm required by law to tell you that you should never touch a gun. Do you understand what I'm telling you?"
PATIENT: "Guns? Hmmmmm.....I never thought of that but there's an idea. Thanks!"

ObamaCare....ya have to wonder what other brilliant requirements are in that monument to over-intrusive Big Government. Guess we had to pass it first to see what's in it. :rolleyes:

BoatShoes;1366318 wrote:For instance, the Affordable Care Act sought to provide funding for doctors to talk to patients with mental illness/depression etc. about proper gun use etc. and the NRA fought to get that removed. They never get serious about keeping "dangerous people" away from guns because that's the first step toward gun control, etc.

Whether the NRA supported this idea or not is inconsequential to me.

The issue that stands out to me is that some politician and/or bureaucrat actually took the time to seek taxpayer funding to pay doctors to discuss "proper gun use" with patients with mental illness.

DOCTOR: "OK, Mr. Loon, here's the deal. The state has decided you aren't mentally stable and could possibly cause harm to others. So I'm required by law to tell you that you should never touch a gun. Do you understand what I'm telling you?"
PATIENT: "Guns? Hmmmmm.....I never thought of that but there's an idea. Thanks!"
DOCTOR: "Glad you understand. Now here's a double dose of Ritalin courtesy of ObamaCare."

ObamaCare....ya have to wonder what other brilliant requirements are in that 2,700 page monument to over-intrusive Big Government. Guess we had to pass it first to see what was in it.

:rolleyes:

I'd like to know who wrote it(Obamacare)..obviously NOT CONGRESS who didn't even read it. We know Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. We know the founding fathers that were involved in the writing of the Constitution.
But the remake of 1/6th the U.S. economy?....a bunch of faceless bureaucrats, ...assembled and put together by an unseen, unknown entity.

Try Googling it.

BoatShoes;1366318 wrote:Sure, they're posturing in the press

There's plenty of posturing from both sides.

BoatShoes;1366318 wrote:For instance, the Affordable Care Act sought to provide funding for doctors to talk to patients with mental illness/depression etc. about proper gun use etc. and the NRA fought to get that removed.

Do you think Dr's talking to patients with mental illness about guns is going to prevent future tragedies? That sounds like a waste of money to me.

BoatShoes;1366318 wrote:They never get serious about keeping "dangerous people" away from guns because that's the first step toward gun control, etc.

There is a currently a system setup that is supposed to prevent people with mental illness from buying a gun. It is not implemented correctly. Any expansion of this program to private gun sales will not do anything until it is corrected. I'm fairly confident that none of the recent tragedies were purchased in a way that would have been prevented by a new law.

I was watching interviews with the parents of the children who were murdered last night. One lady said she is trying to adopt a cat right now and she had to give references and they called her vet. She said it's easier to buy a gun than it is to get a cat. That's ridiculous. I can get a cat for free any time I want. Just because she chose to go through an adoption agency doesn't mean it's harder to get a cat than a gun.

While I certainly sympathize with the parents of the victims and NOBODY wants to say anything bad about them, they have been through a very traumatic experience and have an extremely biased view point. The media is playing on that a lot.

I have a friend who's mother was hit by a drunk driver and she died in the hospital. For whatever reason my friend now hates that hospital. She broke her leg and didn't want to go there because "they killed my mom". I understand that it was a traumatic experience for her and nobody wants to tell her she's crazy but her thinking is clearly not rational.

BoatShoes;1366318 wrote:Sure, they're posturing in the press but when push comes to shove to get something done they would not put their support behind it. For instance, the Affordable Care Act sought to provide funding for doctors to talk to patients with mental illness/depression etc. about proper gun use etc. and the NRA fought to get that removed. They never get serious about keeping "dangerous people" away from guns because that's the first step toward gun control, etc.

I am not sure where you get your disinformation but you are in space ...... way out there, so far so it appears you are working for others.