US Gun laws are "License to murder"

Ja !!

We agreed on a definition of an "assault weapon" yonks ago. They're the scary looking semi automatics that are specifically designed to kill a lot of people ( or make sure one person is really, dead ) without dropping the weapon from your eye to chamber another round. They're the guns people buy to make the statement "don't mess with me" and they give you a raging hard on to flash and fire in front of your friends or strangers.

Sure, you can envision scenarios where you may need one of these things, like an unruly army of groundhogs bolting across no mans land with eyes on decimating your cornfield where you might need to put a large amount of rounds downrange in a hurry in order to preserve your livelihood.



Yes, this is pretty much the crux of it. It's not about dong what's "right", but more about doing what's allowed.



Not just the military, but those citizens who support whatever the government is doing that causes the revolters to revolt in the first place.

It's as funny a justification as the keeping a well regulated militia. Who's going to invade? Canada? Mexico? China? The Duchy of Grand Fenwick? Repelling invasions is what you pay your military for. it's their job. You don't after all, see citizens stockpiling concrete "just in case" they need to fix some potholes in the freeway.

Lurch, they are your words. I think you need to decide who is running your Country; the NRA or the “elected” government? As far as education goes, I’m sure you do a good job teaching people that guns are dangerous, and the appropriate safety procedures for handling dangerous weapons. But the safety message does not seem to be working. Perhaps you could give Dick Cheney a hunting safety lesson.

It’s interesting that when the Virginia Tech shooting happened all the gun types proclaimed “if I’d been there I would have save those kids”. What’s the difference this time? No glory!



Lurch, you tend to say all laws you disagree with are terrible. It’s not the law that was bad, just some definitions. The law worked because it kept people from being killed. When it was reprieved, violence broke out in three countries. Though, I agree about the function. Military style weapons like AR15 should be banned. As they say “The second amendment ain’t about duck hunting or target shooting.”



Seem to recall that it was a sheep dog carrying a gun to church. Sheep dogs/police officers hmm? However, it’s simple. If you carry a gun to church you should not be in there, it sacrilege. It distracts from the sacred space and trust, and it is just plain inappropriate. You wouldn’t wear you spurs to bed, would you? And you wonder why I keep asking why are you guys so paranoid?



As I’ve said before laws are made to the lowest common denominator. In a civilized society people, some people have to forgo some of their rights for the community.




*cough*cough* perhaps you should look at some Emergency room stats, becfore you start blaming the media again. Eight children are shot to death every day.

... and just now a Kansas abortion doc got shot dead in a church where he served as an Usher... would this have been prevented if anybody else would have 'carried' there?

I doubt it - strongly. I doubt that one 'carrying' would have jumped up and screamed "down, down!" pulled out his gun and shot the approaching killer.

These are just cows-poo scenarios... At best he would have shot him after.



PS: It's not that I don't like you, Lurch - it's just that I consider your arguments weak and without reason... I have nothing against you carrying when "on duty" - I stated that long time ago, with the exceptioned professions. But ideally this gun would be stored in the police station... all doomsday hollywood scenarios set aside.

So you want to limit the amount of ammunition that can be kept in a home? What about people with hundreds of acres of land where they have their own area to shoot? Yes that's perfectly legal. There are 'ranges' on state land that are not manned with a Range Officer, private citizens show up and shoot their own ammunition. What about people who reload their own ammunition?

Realistically, ammo that isn't already loaded into a magazine does you no good in a fight or defensive situation, so I don't know why you're so intent on limiting it, or what you think that will solve.



Yeah actually, I do. That said unless I'm going somewhere specific where I *can't* I will always have at least a knife on me. Mainly for utility purposes, but there is always a defensive element to it. And no I've never had to use it defensively, or even come close to having to use it. I tend to do my best to stay out of situations where I may have to use deadly force. If I'm acting in a law enforcement capacity I don't have the luxury of simply walking away. And there are people out there with severe grudges against police.



I'm a little confused about what you're actually trying to get at there.. Someone innocent dying is *never* acceptable, and if my weapon is the cause than I am completely responsible, and I accept that. If the weapon under the bed was a regular CCW gun, and the owner decided they didn't want to carry that day, than the kid died because the owner took the day off, and didn't fulfill their responsibilities. The safest place for my gun is on my hip.



You're right that's not the best example. I don't think the feds, or the state should be controlling and regulating smoking in terms of privately owned business on private property. That should be up to the owner. Public land, and public buildings are different.

You're right though, what do we do with the population that doesn't listen? Cause we already have the laws, we already have the regulations. The people *you* have a problem with are the the people who aren't following those regulations. What makes you think they'll follow the new ones?

---------

Sorry I had a long 3 day weekend of SAR training... on with the reply!

---------




I'd like to think the *people* are running the country, and right now I would have to say the NRA is reflecting the mentality of more of the country than the "elected officials," but that's just an opinion.



What are you trying to compare here? The intentional killing spree of a disturbed individual and an accidental/negligent death of a child? There's no glory in either



The US AWB repeal caused violence in other countries now? Well I appologize I didn't realize our bullets fly that far The law isn't terrible because of what it did. The law is terrible because of how they went about it. Shoddy law making is a bad precident to set, and the way the AWB was written should *never* have been passed. The hype and fear mongering that was passed on along with it made politicians buy into it to further their career.



Police officers are sheepdogs by their nature. I guess you didn't bother to read my post and realize that was a quote from a book? Or maybe you did you just wanted to bait me anyways. Either way, I guess I should have provided more context for it, so I guess I'll post the preceding paragraph.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a police officer he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas, in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down 14 people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait for him to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"



This isn't about playing your music too loud late at night Stone. This is about personal safety and your responsibility to protect *yourself*. If the world were truly as civilized as you would like it to be there wouldn't be criminals, there wouldn't be police, there wouldn't be wars. But that's not the world we live in, even you guys across the ocean(s). In a 'civilized' society when people begin to lay down their arms, there are others that will begin picking them up to pray on those that are in denial.



It's not that I don't like you either FT, but I think you're a wee bit misguided, and blind to the real world. I sincerely hope you never have to see the reality you've avoided thus far.

Just curious though.. Why are you okay with me carrying openly while I'm on duty, but squeamish about me carrying concealed when the badge comes off? Am I less responsible? If the weapon is properly concealed it doesn't effect anyone around me unless it's needed since they wont even know it's there.

That’s close to treason. What, you would prefer Ted “the motor town madman” Nugent and the NRA running the country?

Federal agency warns of radicals on right

“The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," saying the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias. “




The assault weapon ban prevented much carnage, just as Class 111 still does. How about you give us your ideas on what should be in the semi-automatic assault weapon ban.



What I’m saying is that when the Virginia Tech shooting happened all the gun types proclaimed “if I’d been there I would have save those kids”. But I don’t hear all these wannabe heroes coming forth and saying they could have perevented a death when there are no opportunites for herocis and glory, as in the California incident. No just another accident.




I thought the bit in the book was about sheep dogs not police officer. I don’t remember the bit where he said “Police officers are sheepdogs by their nature.” I could be wrong on that.



A story about a story. After all the other stories, like the little qirl with the shotgun that proved to be proved to be false. I'd need more proof on that one. Anyhow, it could have resulted in more people being killed. And in you terms it's just another unfortunate accident. Though, I'd suggest that preventing that guy for getting his hands on an assault weapon would have been the best solution. But hey, that’s too sensible!



You guys like living in a violent society, so you create that society with you guns. It would be miraculous, but one day people will “wake-up” and see that all this violence is just stupid. Growing men chasing each other around with guns because they live in fear and have lost the ability to communicate.

You want to stockpile ammo? Store them in the shooting range.
Private ranges? Sorry, but no. Stockpile at home? Doesn't serve a defensive purpose, sorry but "no" also.

Why you think there are such harsh weapon procedures in a highly skilled/trained environment, like the military? Why not having the same, if not heavier regulations outside?

After duty you put your gun into the police station. Inside a safe... that's all you really need for duty.

What would you feel being appropriate for that CCW holder, who left his gun under the bed for his daughter to shoot her little brother? A pat on the shoulder along with "No worries, mate - tragedy - but you can still make another one..."

It happens too often, Lurch...

oh you guys just like to use inflammatory words to make your point.

I would respond but I think it would just be redundant and fall on deaf ears. It's good to see new blood in here

Lurch in case you are wondering, the Thich Nhat Hanh quote is for you and Lt Col David Grossmans WSG to think about

In the states you all have a right to bear arms. Major spelling error that the proofreaders missed, It was meant to say
The right to bare arms.

Stone that is only a slightly different scenario than the one Jainas use to describe the madness of man...

Faith... what was first, chicken or egg?
Am trying to keep it cool and find the deaf ears (to reason) at least on both ends of the table - if not in the audience as well

Good point Fire Tom.

I think truths about the “madness of man” are eternal and universal.

I’d like to hear the Janism parable sometime.


cheers

they used it in a very different context and approach, Stone...

gookst doo

Point being is not (as TNH sees it) to look at the bright side of life, that being human and adorable... but more like Lurch's approach of "wake up to the REAL world" - though with completely different consequences



Lurch - so many people out there trying to sell me their "real world"... cops and sadhus alike... But I'm not buying, especially not if that means I have to run with fear, wear a weapon or deliver my fate to some guy with a gun... By time you too will grow out of that condition(ing) and realize Maybe you check into the Jain philosophy... they are one of the oldest living religions of the planet... quite astonishing how they survived... must be "India"

Fire Tom, thanks for sharing “the parable of the man in the well”. It think you are right, it is used in a very different context. From all accounts, it illustrates well the Jain doctrine of Anekanta, the "manysidedness" of things. Perhaps some time you could explain Anekanta, as I haven’t been able to find a reference.

BTW, what do you call the real world? “the forest, thus Vidura explained is samsara”

I'm not into Jainism, Stone. Sorry I can't help you out with "Anekanta" - as a matter of fact I googled it and immediately got turned off by the moralist and doomsday approach that I'm facing there.

See - to me it also reflects on this very topic (where some might consider me a "moralist")... I have attained a certain, that's all.

I've learned that the solution to peoples problems are mostly right in front of their very eyes... only that they can't see them - because of that.

Obviously there is be a problem in the US with guns - else there would not be ("innocent") people dying under such tragic circumstances (which get ignored, played down or equalized by lobbyists). Which is what makes me reach out my hand and say:

"Look, there is a problem, but you're too entangled to notice. Look at each and every individual aspect of the problem and then you may see the big picture." - as the big picture often is beyond our focus.

I gues it became crystal understanding that todays population of the USofA is not remembering their forefathers dream (as in "freedom from oppression" from inhumane regimes and to freely express their spirituality. It might be recalled that Europe at this time had been entrenched in warfare and that peasants got sacrificed by the lot.)

But what they found when arriving in the US (if they survived the passage) has been awful. People living in pityable conditions and being subject to scam and even more drugery than in the old world - and prior to independance they were only colony - so they ventured off and faced a hostile environment and .... wwwwooow... "natives".

However... we've been over this already.

People of the Americas today could do one simple thing to better their lives and by that greatly improve the condition of the planet and that of mankind altogether: listen and learn. Instead of exporting a corrupted version of (corporate) "freedom"(*) to the rest of the world. A freedom that is built on opression, arms and fear-mongering.

I'm asking: "Why do you keep on supporting conditions that promote faschism?" and "There is a way out of this. You don't have to victimize yourself - and subsequently others (if you don't want to)."

As I see it "the American people" today are

a) not really aware of what is going on and why it is happening to them
b) have no thorough understanding of their own history (nor their own constitution)
c) are a victim to lobbyists, such as the NRA and a victim to propaganda
d) are (frankly speaking) outright scared and paranoid - based upon their environment, history and conditioning

I have no more intention to change that - the only intention now is: don't promote your lifestyle as being still appropriate in the dawn of the Billennium. I'm no expert at all - all I'm stating is "common sense" as it's presenting itself to me.

Maybe they can learn something from those people that have gotten genocised so many centuries, maybe by self-reflection they will come to know what it really means "to be free" - cause (as I see it) a "freedom" that is based upon guns and bullets is only a delusion.

[/video]


*conditions do apply to the "American Dream" - always have, so "may god buy America"

{edit]Oh, and on recent events:

US abortion doc, shot - report on funeral

Ain't it obvious that in a country with such a wide psychological diversity (between progressiveness and antiquated conservatism), many conflicts are being carried out with guns - especially when so easily accessible?

Gunman opens fire at US Holocaust museum




Lurch, people are saying this is a direct result of overturning the DC gun laws, and organisations like the NRA prevented police from stopping the "bad guys" before they get the chance to shoot people. But I suppose, as usual, the excuse is this was another accident and he was going hunting.

I also think it’s time to wake-up to the extremists in America, as discussed previously. It’s not difficult to see that many members of the NRA are linked to white supremacist groups, especially with the large increase in the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons since the election.

*who* is saying it's a direct result of the DC ban removal? Cause I don't buy that for a second. Washington DC has been one of the most violent cities in America for YEARS.

I have *never* called these intentional crimes an accident, nor do I condone them in ANY way, and I resent that you would imply that. Random people committing senseless acts of violence is why I *like* having access to weapons if I want to.

The guy that got into the shooting at the holocaust museum was obviously a nut. Had the gun illegally, and was already a felon. So HOW does the DC ruling have *ANYTHING* to do with him??? Why is that even an issue?


How the hell does an increase in firearm sales = white supremacist? What sort of logic is that? Obama has said many times he was looking at renewing the ban, of course people are going to get them while they can if that is a possibility. Sorry FT but you're grasping at straws on that one, and seems to be blatant flame bait.

I don't want criminals to have guns, or access to them. I don't want innocent people to do. I don't want accidents to happen. I don't want innocent people to be forced into becoming victims because the government wont allow them to protect themselves. I want the *choice* to arm myself or not. I would rather not rely on someone else to protect me.

Lots of people are saying it. Incidents like this were bound to increase after the ban was removed. I’d suggest that with the removal of the ban one of the most violent cities in America just got more violent. Did people think that violence would somehow disappear because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a ban on handguns violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms?



There are a number of reports like these ones that I posted earlier: Federal agency warns of radicals on right. Obama's election fuels US extremism: leaked report. What do good citizens want with assault weapons anyhow? As they say, the Second Amendment right to bear arms ain’t about duck hunting or target shooting.



Lurch, if you really don’t want criminals to have guns and innocent people to die, then why do you support putting semi-automatic assault weapons back on the streets and removing handgun bans? This does not add up, because you say one thing and do the opposite.

egg. I don't know why that is some deep philosophical question

Lots of people is not specific-who is saying it? That's what Lurch asked.

More guns sales has no direct correlation to white supremacists. They already have their stockpile. Maybe it has to do will all the soldier coming home and deciding to take up sport shooting...The world is full of maybes

Guns are not the problem. Most people own them and never have a problem. And to say assault weapon or semi, it just serves no real purpose to your arguments. Do you know all the different type of weapons that fall into that category.
And generally, many of these weapons aren't bought legally. Ban or no ban, they will still be there