TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Paranoid Gun-rights advocate ambushes 3 Pittsburg police officers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Paranoid Gun-rights advocate ambushes 3 Pittsburg police officers - Page 2

post #31 of 59
To be fair, there was more that set this guy off besides his paranoia of his guns being taken away. After the event took place it was mentioned on the news that one of the reasons contributing to his snapping was him losing his job.
post #32 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
To be fair, there was more that set this guy off besides his paranoia of his guns being taken away. After the event took place it was mentioned on the news that one of the reasons contributing to his snapping was him losing his job.
I completely agree! That's why I said "the part it played", not that it was the reason. How many more people out there, with legally owned firearms, are listening to the "Obama wants your guns" rhetoric while on the brink of losing their jobs, or have lost them already. I'm concerned about how much more snapping it's going to contribute too.
post #33 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmberThe Bobcat View Post
So very true. This is just the same as when there is a bad incident with an exotic pet owner. All are made to look bad and we have these people screaming for more stupid laws we do not need. We do not need any new guns laws. More laws will do nothing whatsoever, except hurt the responsible people. You can ban guns all you want, but the law breaker will still find a way to get a gun and use it. We need to enforce the regulations we already have, background checks etc, but even with that, if a person wants to break the law, they will do it no matter what.
I agree. We do not need anymore gun laws.
post #34 of 59
There will always be nutcases out there. To make a law that would prohibit them from getting guns is impossible. Laws that attempt to do so only end up restricting the rights of those of us who follow the law.

Instead of looking at these isolated examples as representative samples of all of us pro-gun individuals, look at them as what they are - isolated incidents by insane and evil people.

More people die from DUI induced auto accidents than in shootings every year. Does it make sense to ban cars? A car in the hands of a maniac is quite a weapon. I have recently become aware that a neighbor is being charged with aggravated assault because he tried to run over some people with his car.

Most lawful gun owners don't commit crimes. Even more concrete is the fact that of those of us who legally carry guns daily, we are amongst the safest and most law-abiding individuals in all of society.

Don't group us in with nutcases. We are normal, level-headed, intelligent individuals. We deserve better than to be stereotyped because of the lunatics who use guns for unlawful purposes.
post #35 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawGuy View Post
There will always be nutcases out there. To make a law that would prohibit them from getting guns is impossible. Laws that attempt to do so only end up restricting the rights of those of us who follow the law.
But the people speaking the loudest about "new gun laws" are mostly the gun owners themselves, with a "we the victims" campaign that Obama will take their guns. Obama has said only that he favors "common sense gun laws". For all anyone knows, that could mean doing away with the reams of stupid gun laws and just leaving the ones that work.

Quote:
Instead of looking at these isolated examples as representative samples of all of us pro-gun individuals, look at them as what they are - isolated incidents by insane and evil people.
I wasn't looking at it as an example of pro-gun individuals. I'm looking at it as an unbalanced individual deeply influenced by the political paranoia campaign being waged by many pro-gun individuals. Who incidently, even now, spread even more of the rhetoric over this very individual, that his actions will be used "to make more laws to take our guns". I cannot for the life of me understand how people can't see that their "coming to get your guns" statements are feeding the psychosis of people like him.

Quote:
More people die from DUI induced auto accidents than in shootings every year. Does it make sense to ban cars? A car in the hands of a maniac is quite a weapon. I have recently become aware that a neighbor is being charged with aggravated assault because he tried to run over some people with his car.
Not a good example actually. Yes, cars and guns are both machines, and both have uses, and both emit pollutants every time they are used. Cars are built and marketed for an entirely different purpose than being destructive, and operating one DUI is illegal almost everywhere. Millions of cars are used daily without damaging anything. If a gun is used at all, something must absorb the impact and mass displacement of that bullet, as per it's design. Even if it's fired into the air, it's coming down somewhere
Quote:
Most lawful gun owners don't commit crimes. Even more concrete is the fact that of those of us who legally carry guns daily, we are amongst the safest and most law-abiding individuals in all of society.
That is a demographic that is in flux, and is changing rapidly. The man that shot up the Immigrant center in NY even had permits for his guns. At least 3 of the family murders in the last 2 months were committed with legal firearms, not to mention the guy that killed the police officers mentioned in the OP. I've not see any information on the others yet.

Quote:
Don't group us in with nutcases. We are normal, level-headed, intelligent individuals. We deserve better than to be stereotyped because of the lunatics who use guns for unlawful purposes.
I want to agree with this, and do, for the most part. But, of the people killing their families and sometimes themselves...they WEREN'T even thought of as nutcases until after they committed their crimes. Many of them were no doubt looked upon as normal, level headed, intelligent individuals before their specific conditions drove them to do what they did.

It appears to be a quick fix for such debates to point out that people committing such crimes are criminals. And, they are, once they've committed their crime. And, the next legal gun owner that kills will also be labeled a criminal, completely ignoring the fact that prior to committing the crime, they were not.
post #36 of 59
What a fantastic point; I've never seen three sentences so profoundly capture the essence of an argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
It appears to be a quick fix for such debates to point out that people committing such crimes are criminals. And, they are, once they've committed their crime. And, the next legal gun owner that kills will also be labeled a criminal, completely ignoring the fact that prior to committing the crime, they were not.
post #37 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
I wasn't looking at it as an example of pro-gun individuals. I'm looking at it as an unbalanced individual deeply influenced by the political paranoia campaign being waged by many pro-gun individuals. Who incidently, even now, spread even more of the rhetoric over this very individual, that his actions will be used "to make more laws to take our guns". I cannot for the life of me understand how people can't see that their "coming to get your guns" statements are feeding the psychosis of people like him.
So what do you want people to do, keep their opinions to themselves because some lunatic might be influenced to do something crazy?
We'd better ditch most of our current culture in that case.

What you call "political paranoia" about potential gun confiscation is, in some people's opinion, a possibility. Even you stated that no one is sure where Obama currently stands on the issue, but he has said enough in the past to give people reason to think he's no fan of the 2nd Amendment.


Quote:
Originally Posted by skippymjp View Post
But, of the people killing their families and sometimes themselves...they WEREN'T even thought of as nutcases until after they committed their crimes. Many of them were no doubt looked upon as normal, level headed, intelligent individuals before their specific conditions drove them to do what they did.

It appears to be a quick fix for such debates to point out that people committing such crimes are criminals. And, they are, once they've committed their crime. And, the next legal gun owner that kills will also be labeled a criminal, completely ignoring the fact that prior to committing the crime, they were not.
Ted Bundy was handsome, intelligent and charming. He regularly attended high society functions. He also bludgeoned to death several women sleeping in their sorority house at FSU.

"We never would have suspected he had a problem - he was just a regular guy..." Isn't that always said by people after someone they know commits an outrageous crime?

There will always be people who outwardly seem "fine" but are walking time bombs. Who knows if the guy who shot those officers would ever have done more that keep a collection of guns if the officers hadn't come to the door that day? In his twisted mind he must have thought they were coming to get him. Maybe he would have become a serial killer. We don't know what demons were in his head, but we know that he was seriously deranged to kill those police officers. To pin any responsibility for his actions on people who are of the opinion that the 2nd Amendment may be in jeopardy is unfair.

Any lunatic can choose anything as a "cause" and may take that cause to terrible extremes.

My heart goes out to those fallen officers and their families. What a tragedy.
post #38 of 59
Skippy

WOW, I think there may be a few criminals that actually have priors.


Great post Sue.
post #39 of 59
I'm so tired of hearing about the 2nd Amendment, as though it's some sort of Holy Grail for freedom. Forget about the constitutional legal groundwork for the availability of guns, that is meaningless (as were many things, before they became hot-button issues and were parlayed into amendments). Just because something was deemed legal yesterday doesn't mean its use can't be (or wasn't) exploited, abused, and had its legality seen as obsolete and/or downright harmful, today.

There are inherent rights and freedoms that all people are deserving of; gun ownership isn't one of them. Not that it's necessarily bad, it's just something that is merely state-mandated (and is far more trivial today from a utilitarian standpoint, than the reasons for its implementation in the 1700's) and thus, shouldn't be treated as though it is on par with the right to breathe oxygen.

While I don't give a rip about guns either way, something about the obsessive way the pro-gun folk view the issue is disturbing.
post #40 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keycube View Post
I'm so tired of hearing about the 2nd Amendment, as though it's some sort of Holy Grail for freedom. Forget about the constitutional legal groundwork for the availability of guns, that is meaningless (as were many things, before they became hot-button issues and were parlayed into amendments). Just because something was deemed legal yesterday doesn't mean its use can't be (or wasn't) exploited, abused, and had its legality seen as obsolete and/or downright harmful, today.

There are inherent rights and freedoms that all people are deserving of; gun ownership isn't one of them. Not that it's necessarily bad, it's just something that is merely state-mandated (and is far more trivial today from a utilitarian standpoint, than the reasons for its implementation in the 1700's) and thus, shouldn't be treated as though it is on par with the right to breathe oxygen.

While I don't give a rip about guns either way, something about the obsessive way the pro-gun folk view the issue is disturbing.
Now this post makes sense to me. In the 1700's they needed guns to provide meat for the table. Nowadays perhaps we need to be reminded that we can get meat at the local grocery/deli and therefore don't need that gun.

But, seriously, I don't think the problem is the prohibition of guns per se, I think it's mostly folks are more concerned that the bad old government might take a "right" away from them whether it's a useless, meaningless right or not. And, heaven forbid, if they take that right away, what right will be next?
post #41 of 59
You want to see the United States of America have another Civil War, try taking our guns away.


FTR, I don't have a gun, but I would fight for my right to have one.
post #42 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTLynn View Post
So what do you want people to do, keep their opinions to themselves because some lunatic might be influenced to do something crazy?
We'd better ditch most of our current culture in that case.

What you call "political paranoia" about potential gun confiscation is, in some people's opinion, a possibility. Even you stated that no one is sure where Obama currently stands on the issue, but he has said enough in the past to give people reason to think he's no fan of the 2nd Amendment.
Not at all. But to deny that those opinions play a part in feeding these outbursts is irresponsible. And to ramp up the rhetoric when the shooting does take place with claims like "now they'll use this against us and try to take our guns" is downright dangerous. As for Obama, he has also said that he supported the 2nd Amendment. So any statements made as to what he "will do", is pure conjecture.

Quote:
Ted Bundy was handsome, intelligent and charming. He regularly attended high society functions. He also bludgeoned to death several women sleeping in their sorority house at FSU.

"We never would have suspected he had a problem - he was just a regular guy..." Isn't that always said by people after someone they know commits an outrageous crime?
If Ted Bundy had been stockpiling guns, body armor and ammunition, he could have easily quadrupled his "body count" in just one afternoon.

Quote:
There will always be people who outwardly seem "fine" but are walking time bombs. Who knows if the guy who shot those officers would ever have done more that keep a collection of guns if the officers hadn't come to the door that day? In his twisted mind he must have thought they were coming to get him. Maybe he would have become a serial killer. We don't know what demons were in his head, but we know that he was seriously deranged to kill those police officers. To pin any responsibility for his actions on people who are of the opinion that the 2nd Amendment may be in jeopardy is unfair.
Who knows if he would have even HAD a collection of guns if he hadn't thought that he'd soon no longer be able to obtain them?
Quote:
Any lunatic can choose anything as a "cause" and may take that cause to terrible extremes.
Really? ANY lunatic? But if you check the "Right Wing Extremist Threat" thread, you'll find that there are people that insist that almost all conservatives are immune to becoming extremists or lunatics.
post #43 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Skippy

WOW, I think there may be a few criminals that actually have priors.


Great post Sue.
Yes, many do. But now, check into the "Fathers" that "snapped" and have killed their entire families with guns that were "just around the house" since January for priors.
post #44 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
But, seriously, I don't think the problem is the prohibition of guns per se, I think it's mostly folks are more concerned that the bad old government might take a "right" away from them whether it's a useless, meaningless right or not. And, heaven forbid, if they take that right away, what right will be next?
That's fine; but if that particular group will at least admit that the foundation of their argument is a fallacy (Hypothesis contrary to fact) and is purely rooted in paranoia, then perhaps we'd all have a decent starting point for discussion.
post #45 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
You want to see the United States of America have another Civil War, try taking our guns away.


FTR, I don't have a gun, but I would fight for my right to have one.
Are you suggesting that people should fight and kill our own troops, here? In their own homeland? The politicians enacting any such legislation won't be the one's coming, it will be our troops, sworn to protect the US against any enemies, foreign and domestic.
post #46 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keycube View Post
I'm so tired of hearing about the 2nd Amendment, as though it's some sort of Holy Grail for freedom. Forget about the constitutional legal groundwork for the availability of guns, that is meaningless (as were many things, before they became hot-button issues and were parlayed into amendments). Just because something was deemed legal yesterday doesn't mean its use can't be (or wasn't) exploited, abused, and had its legality seen as obsolete and/or downright harmful, today.

There are inherent rights and freedoms that all people are deserving of; gun ownership isn't one of them. Not that it's necessarily bad, it's just something that is merely state-mandated (and is far more trivial today from a utilitarian standpoint, than the reasons for its implementation in the 1700's) and thus, shouldn't be treated as though it is on par with the right to breathe oxygen.

While I don't give a rip about guns either way, something about the obsessive way the pro-gun folk view the issue is disturbing.
Actually, I have to disagree somewhat here. I think that the 2nd Amendment is a good thing. People are more emboldened when they know they are not entirely helpless. A citizenry that is not helpless is also not easily intimidated. That is one of the reasons we have such fantastic participation in the political process, because people are not intimidated by the government.

But then, in this case, the gun itself is mostly symbolic. The very idea of actually using it against the government is just a tad silly, to say the least.
post #47 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keycube View Post
I'm so tired of hearing about the 2nd Amendment, as though it's some sort of Holy Grail for freedom. Forget about the constitutional legal groundwork for the availability of guns, that is meaningless (as were many things, before they became hot-button issues and were parlayed into amendments). Just because something was deemed legal yesterday doesn't mean its use can't be (or wasn't) exploited, abused, and had its legality seen as obsolete and/or downright harmful, today.

There are inherent rights and freedoms that all people are deserving of; gun ownership isn't one of them. Not that it's necessarily bad, it's just something that is merely state-mandated (and is far more trivial today from a utilitarian standpoint, than the reasons for its implementation in the 1700's) and thus, shouldn't be treated as though it is on par with the right to breathe oxygen.

While I don't give a rip about guns either way, something about the obsessive way the pro-gun folk view the issue is disturbing.
Gosh, all this talk about the Constitution is just really stupid. It's SO passe! Just ditch the whole thing because at least one of those silly "rights" is superfluous and downright old-fashioned. I mean, what's so wrong about government controlled news anyway? Or a State religion? Or this whole "due process" thing?

Do you even realize that the SECOND amendment is was one of the cornerstones that the country was founded on. An armed population keeps the government in check, because some rogue can't just come in and take over. They know we can fight back if pushed too far. Not that we've needed to, but we could.

I have no issue with reasonable gun laws, when they are enforced on more than the law abiding. When laws actually curb the bad guys getting the weapons, they make sense. We have them on the books already. You can't own an automatic weapon without a license (that is very difficult and very expensive to obtain). Felons can't own or possess a firearm, and we have a background check to ensure that they don't bypass that law. You can't use a firearm in the commission of a crime. You have to have a license to carry a concealed firearm, and in most states that requires a safety and proficiency course. There's boatloads more on the state and local level.

Given the nature of your posts on this topic, I have a real hard time believing that you don't have a pretty strong opinion on this topic, and that you "don't give a rip about guns either way". Just an observation. Your arguments are a little to well fleshed out for you not to have a strong standpoint, and believe me I've heard these arguments before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
But, seriously, I don't think the problem is the prohibition of guns per se, I think it's mostly folks are more concerned that the bad old government might take a "right" away from them whether it's a useless, meaningless right or not. And, heaven forbid, if they take that right away, what right will be next?
Yup, if they take away that right that is guaranteed by the Constitution, then what's next? Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion?

Regardless of whether other countries have the same right, this one is in our Constitution. So yeah, I don't want the bad ol' government trampling on that document, or my right to bear arms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
If Ted Bundy had been stockpiling guns, body armor and ammunition, he could have easily quadrupled his "body count" in just one afternoon.
Quite a few lunatics had stockpiles of guns and ammunition. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold come immediately to mind. Their body count was "only" 13. Bad? Yes, definitely. BTW, those guns were obtained illegally which is rarely mentioned. They expended hundreds of rounds that day. Literally hundreds. But they only killed 13, plus the shots that actually counted in killing themselves.

How many rounds did this guy fire? How many rounds do any of those rampage killers fire? And how many were actually fatal hits? Charles Whitman was the only proficient rampage killer that I know of, and only because he had been trained as a sniper.

Ted Bundy was a much more prolific killer with his hands than most of the examples that are used to justify gun bans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Yes, many do. But now, check into the "Fathers" that "snapped" and have killed their entire families with guns that were "just around the house" since January for priors.
Check into the millions of people who have guns "just around the house" (does anyone actually keep their firearms like that??? I've never seen any like that!) who didn't "snap". You're talking about a hundredth or thousandth of a percentage point of gun owners who "snap" and are so incredibly selfish to take their families with them in their decent into madness and death.

What about the guy who strangled and stabbed his wife and two daughters in a hotel room? Should we impliment background checks and criminalize certain types of knives too?

This is the same type of logic that gets certain breeds of dogs banned and exterminated. Take a bad news story, exaggerate the instances by only looking at the worst case scenarios (which is what makes the news), and perpetuate the idea that the more you hear about it the more typical it is. These are isolated incidents, not the norm. They are sad, but they are atypical.
post #48 of 59
Quote:
Not a good example actually. Yes, cars and guns are both machines, and both have uses, and both emit pollutants every time they are used. Cars are built and marketed for an entirely different purpose than being destructive, and operating one DUI is illegal almost everywhere.
You're implying of course that guns are designed solely to be destructive which IMO is not the case. You're leaving out guns that exist solely for target shooting such as those which are used in smallbore bench rifle competitions.

The whole gun debate is pointless because even if you hate guns, the bottom line is that they exist and will always exist. Unless you can build a time machine and somehow stop the firearm from ever being created, they're here to stay. The only way to protect yourself from crazy lunatics with guns, is to own a gun yourself - whether you like that fact or not is up to you - but you can't change it. You can pass all the laws you want and it's not going to change the fact that the bad guys will have guns. It will only change whether the good guys will have the guns to protect themselves with.

Again, you focus on the small number of people who use guns for nefarious purposes, and entirely ignore the countless others who lawfully own guns for purposes of defense, target shooting, etc.

Also, somebody mentioned the fact that meat is available at the grocery store therefore eliminating the need for guns. All I'll say about that is that I'd actually prefer to eat hunted meat than store-bought because store bought meat comes from animals that live their lives in terrible conditions, hardly able to move and surely miserable. Hunted meat comes from animals that have lived their lives in the wild - the way these animals are supposed to live - happy and able to do what they want to do.

Anyways, I'm not going to sit around and argue this age old argument that seems to get rehashed over and over with those of us who are pro-gun incessantly verbally bashed in the process. I'm going to do the same thing I do on a daily basis when I'm carrying a firearm. Walk away from the confrontation. Honestly, this I hear this argument everywhere these days. I chimed in and I regret it. I'll just state my opinion bluntly and leave it at this - I don't support enacting more gun control laws than the dizzying array we already have in place. I don't support the NFA, although I follow the law when it comes to it, and I don't support reinstating an AWB. With that said, I'm not exactly going to lose my marbles and start shooting people over my opinion. That would just be beyond stupid, and heartlessly evil to boot. I fight this fight in the voting booth and for the most part leave it there with the rare exception of me chiming in when I hear the subject pop up somewhere. Unfortunately, chiming in never has any positive outcome because those of us who are pro-gun are set in our opinion, and those of you who are anti-gun are set in your opinion (and you're free to be so, that's one of the great things about this country). Nothing I say will change your mind, that much I learned years ago.
post #49 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawGuy View Post
You're implying of course that guns are designed solely to be destructive which IMO is not the case. You're leaving out guns that exist solely for target shooting such as those which are used in smallbore bench rifle competitions.
As a Deputy Sheriff, I spent a good many hours on the range. I have not found a target yet that wasn't damaged and eventually destroyed by "target shooting". If you have such a critter, it is worth a fortune.

Quote:
The whole gun debate is pointless because even if you hate guns, the bottom line is that they exist and will always exist. Unless you can build a time machine and somehow stop the firearm from ever being created, they're here to stay. The only way to protect yourself from crazy lunatics with guns, is to own a gun yourself - whether you like that fact or not is up to you - but you can't change it. You can pass all the laws you want and it's not going to change the fact that the bad guys will have guns. It will only change whether the good guys will have the guns to protect themselves with.

Again, you focus on the small number of people who use guns for nefarious purposes, and entirely ignore the countless others who lawfully own guns for purposes of defense, target shooting, etc.
The "whole gun debate" in this thread is a pro-gun strawman designed to take attention away from the point. That the pro-gun camp's "Obama wants your guns" rhetoric, based on little more than a need to say something bad about Obama, is just one more source of fuel for the pyschosis of people just like the shooter in the OP.

Quote:
Also, somebody mentioned the fact that meat is available at the grocery store therefore eliminating the need for guns. All I'll say about that is that I'd actually prefer to eat hunted meat than store-bought because store bought meat comes from animals that live their lives in terrible conditions, hardly able to move and surely miserable. Hunted meat comes from animals that have lived their lives in the wild - the way these animals are supposed to live - happy and able to do what they want to do.

Anyways, I'm not going to sit around and argue this age old argument that seems to get rehashed over and over with those of us who are pro-gun incessantly verbally bashed in the process. I'm going to do the same thing I do on a daily basis when I'm carrying a firearm. Walk away from the confrontation. Honestly, this I hear this argument everywhere these days. I chimed in and I regret it. I'll just state my opinion bluntly and leave it at this - I don't support enacting more gun control laws than the dizzying array we already have in place. I don't support the NFA, although I follow the law when it comes to it, and I don't support reinstating an AWB. With that said, I'm not exactly going to lose my marbles and start shooting people over my opinion. That would just be beyond stupid, and heartlessly evil to boot. I fight this fight in the voting booth and for the most part leave it there with the rare exception of me chiming in when I hear the subject pop up somewhere. Unfortunately, chiming in never has any positive outcome because those of us who are pro-gun are set in our opinion, and those of you who are anti-gun are set in your opinion (and you're free to be so, that's one of the great things about this country). Nothing I say will change your mind, that much I learned years ago.
I'm not really sure where you are getting the "those of you who are anti-gun" from my posts. I thought that this covered that pretty well. If fact, I still have the two revolvers I carried as a Deputy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Actually, I have to disagree somewhat here. I think that the 2nd Amendment is a good thing. People are more emboldened when they know they are not entirely helpless. A citizenry that is not helpless is also not easily intimidated. That is one of the reasons we have such fantastic participation in the political process, because people are not intimidated by the government.

But then, in this case, the gun itself is mostly symbolic. The very idea of actually using it against the government is just a tad silly, to say the least.
Besides, as I've said several times already, the pro's and con's of guns are not what I have been referring to at all. It's the fact that all their paranoid rhetoric based on conjecture is doing is making firearms and ammuntions manufacturers quite happy with their current sales (they may even be behind some of the rhetoric just for that reason), and apparently compounding the mental anquish of those on the edge.
post #50 of 59
Quote:
I'm not really sure where you are getting the "those of you who are anti-gun" from my posts.
Without getting back into this debate - I wasn't replying to only one person's post. I only quoted a single quote because of the direct reply in the first sentence. As to targets beying destoryed. I suppose if you count holes in paper as being destructive - fine (although simunition and other technologies can make practice and training usages of firearms non-destructive). When I hear "destructive" I think of a more extreme interpretation.

As to paranoid rhetoric, I am of the opinion that Obama and Biden have made their views on the subject quite clear. Biden went so far as to essentially call an individual "mentally unbalanced" during the Youtube debate because he made a joke about an AR-15 being "his baby". I believe Biden's exact words were, "If that's his baby, he needs help." I felt that was rude and uncalled for, but Biden backed it up by explaining his views on AR-15s. Biden wrote the original assault weapon ban. He is one of the largest proponents of it. Obama has multiple times mentioned that he supports passing a permanent assault weapons ban. Furthermore, during the Heller case in front of the SCOTUS, Obama first said (if my memory serves me) that his opinion was that the second amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Then, after the majority opinion came out, he pretended like he never said that and said that he always has believed that the second amendment is an individual right. That was ridiculous.

Whether or not there is adequate recent evidence to support the notion that an AWB is imminent, I have mixed feelings. While Obama was in Mexico recently, he said that he was not planning to enact an AWB, but the next day he retracted that comment and said that he and his administration still support enacting an AWB. Which of his statements should people believe? I haven't a clue. If people want to believe that an AWB is imminent, I have no problem with that. They can lawfully go about protesting, sending letters to congressional representatives, and/or purchasing whatever they want while they legally still can. I don't support unlawful means of voicing their opinion. The OP referred to an obviously mentally unbalanced individual with evil in his heart. I remember when that story broke. My first thought was that people were going to use it to categorically label gun owners. I feel that some people in this thread seem to feel that way and I think it's unfortunate. I wasn't necessarily referring to anybody in particular though because individual name calling is below me as well as the members of TCS in general.

Sure, I would imagine there probably are some people out there who are a bit paranoid. I will admit that just out of uncertainty, I bought a few things this year while I still could. I have no idea whether Obama will enact anything, so the worst that happened was I spent some money prematurely. There are plenty of people who are doing that right now more out of uncertainty rather than paranoid certainty. I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I'm sure there are less people out there that are truly paranoid than some in this thread think. I think there are just lots of people who aren't sure what's going to happen like myself.
post #51 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
Do you even realize that the SECOND amendment is was one of the cornerstones that the country was founded on.
So was slavery. After a more throrough analysis however, it has been determined maybe that wasn't such a noble idea. Historical context is key.

Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
Gosh, all this talk about the Constitution is just really stupid. It's SO passe! Just ditch the whole thing because at least one of those silly "rights" is superfluous and downright old-fashioned. I mean, what's so wrong about government controlled news anyway? Or a State religion? Or this whole "due process" thing?
Ummm. Okay. Like I said, I don't have an impassioned interest in guns, but I guess I don't see the problem in taking a step back and objectively analyzing how guns fit within the framework of modern society. And doing so without falling back on arguments of yesterday that may or may not share similar context with today.

And really, isn't that the essence of what the amendments are/were all about? Taking a step back and critiquing "The Rules" for the greater good? Before amendments were considered, their issues obviously were not seen as significant enough to be passed into law, yes? So, what if we're in one of those transitional times even as we speak? Part of the past could be rendered obsolete and - for better or for worse - deemed not so sacred after all. And one day, it could all be seen merely as evolutionary.
post #52 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
Quite a few lunatics had stockpiles of guns and ammunition. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold come immediately to mind. Their body count was "only" 13. Bad? Yes, definitely. BTW, those guns were obtained illegally which is rarely mentioned. They expended hundreds of rounds that day. Literally hundreds. But they only killed 13, plus the shots that actually counted in killing themselves.

How many rounds did this guy fire? How many rounds do any of those rampage killers fire? And how many were actually fatal hits? Charles Whitman was the only proficient rampage killer that I know of, and only because he had been trained as a sniper.

Ted Bundy was a much more prolific killer with his hands than most of the examples that are used to justify gun bans.
Well, there was Muhammed and Malvo, I don't think they ever fired over 2 rounds at a time.

The "efficiency" part seems like an odd point to me actually. From my understanding, most of their fatal shot were fired in the first several minutes, and then they had themselves quite a time "target shooting" and breaking things. Wisely, no one was willing to stick around and be a live target, so they ran out of such targets really quickly. And there was no reason not to shoot the place up, it's not like they needed to conserve any of the ammunition they were carrying for anything.

Quote:
Check into the millions of people who have guns "just around the house" (does anyone actually keep their firearms like that??? I've never seen any like that!) who didn't "snap". You're talking about a hundredth or thousandth of a percentage point of gun owners who "snap" and are so incredibly selfish to take their families with them in their decent into madness and death.
Actually, in my years on patrol, I saw many, many guns "just around the house". "Legal" and "Responsible" are not synonymous by any stretch of the imagination. I realize that there are many legal, responsible gun owners. I also know for a fact that there are many, many legal irresponsible gun owners. I have several favorites actually. One being the 16 year old who showed up for a driver's license test with a Beretta Jetfire in the glove box. His excuse...his dad could never remember to take the gun out of the car he had been driving to put it in the next car he was going to drive. So, he bought one for every car.

And, if the other law enforcement types around would be honest about it, they would agree with me that one very scary and frustrating type of call to respond to is the one involving an armed citizen. As a general rule, armed citizens standing on a lawn, holding (sometimes waving) a gun, thinks that the police are supposed to recognize them as "the good guy". They will often want to argue instead of putting the gun down, they will very often do the "they went thataway" thing, usually doing the pointing with the hand they're holding the gun with. A cop wants to safe the situation as quickly as possible, and having a citizen arguing about disarming in the presence of police responding to a gun call doesn't help matters in the least.

And we can't really say "millions who didn't snap". We can only say "millions who haven't snapped yet". Because the use of legally owned firearms by their owners to commit murder is on the rise. And, the day before those people snapped, they were in the group that "haven't snapped yet". The Virginia Tech shooter is yet another who owned both of his handguns legally.

Quote:
What about the guy who strangled and stabbed his wife and two daughters in a hotel room? Should we impliment background checks and criminalize certain types of knives too?
Not at all. In fact, the last thing we want to do is to tell the edged-weapons fans that "Obama wants your knives!". It might make them crazy too.

Quote:
This is the same type of logic that gets certain breeds of dogs banned and exterminated. Take a bad news story, exaggerate the instances by only looking at the worst case scenarios (which is what makes the news), and perpetuate the idea that the more you hear about it the more typical it is. These are isolated incidents, not the norm. They are sad, but they are atypical.
That's actually a truly excellent example to make my point. It is neither the dog nor the guns fault that they do what they do. It is the users thereof and the culture that condones it. Giving a dog a taste for blood, and telling people that "Obama wants your guns and he'll be coming to get them" is just two different instances of throwing gasoline on the same fire.
post #53 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keycube View Post
Before amendments were considered, their issues obviously were not seen as significant enough to be passed into law, yes?
In fairness, I don't think this applies to the Bill of Rights. I think it was a matter of "Let's get the government up and running first and come back for these later." The BOR was being sent out to states for ratification before all 13 had finished ratifying the main body of the Constitution.

That said, I think we're in agreement that the Constitution needs to be a living, breathing document and not a straitjacket that we're stuck with like our Blue Laws or our sodomy laws - archaic relics, but still on the books and punishable. As far as the 2nd Amendment, back when it was written, the government and the citizens had a pretty decent parity in weapons. Now, the government has cruise missiles, attack helicopters, F-22's, satellites, etc and the idea of staging an armed revolt against them is ludicrous. I do think home defense and hunting were part of the intent of the 2nd Amendment as well, but it specifically talks about a "well-regulated militia" so I can't see how outlawing certain classes of guns which aren't appropriate detracts from those activities.
post #54 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keycube View Post
So was slavery. After a more throrough analysis however, it has been determined maybe that wasn't such a noble idea. Historical context is key.

Ummm. Okay. Like I said, I don't have an impassioned interest in guns, but I guess I don't see the problem in taking a step back and objectively analyzing how guns fit within the framework of modern society. And doing so without falling back on arguments of yesterday that may or may not share similar context with today.
Key difference - slavery wasn't written into the Constitution.

I really don't see the difference in keeping a rogue government at bay between the 1700s and the 2000s. Protecting a free-society is as important today as it was then. You can say what you want about hunting and all that jazz, but that truly was the intent of the Second Amendment. The context of an out-of-control and power-grabbing government is as possible today as it was then, and that is what the Founding Fathers were protecting against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Well, there was Muhammed and Malvo, I don't think they ever fired over 2 rounds at a time.

The "efficiency" part seems like an odd point to me actually. From my understanding, most of their fatal shot were fired in the first several minutes, and then they had themselves quite a time "target shooting" and breaking things. Wisely, no one was willing to stick around and be a live target, so they ran out of such targets really quickly. And there was no reason not to shoot the place up, it's not like they needed to conserve any of the ammunition they were carrying for anything.
Technically, Muhammed and Malvo weren't rampage or spree killers. They were serial killers in that there were more than 2 incidents with a cool down period between. So they were organized, serial killers, which really don't share the same characteristics as the school shooters, or this psycho who went on a rampage.

The efficacy argument was actually in response to your saying that if Bundy had a stockpile of firearms he could have increased his body count in one afternoon. Which actually goes back to the Muhammed and Malvo vs. Harris and Klebold thing. Bundy, Muhammed & Malvo was methodical and organized, and killed for a sense of satisfaction, while Harris & Klebold and the other spree/rampage killers did so due to rage.


Quote:
Originally Posted by skippymjp
Actually, in my years on patrol, I saw many, many guns "just around the house". "Legal" and "Responsible" are not synonymous by any stretch of the imagination. I realize that there are many legal, responsible gun owners. I also know for a fact that there are many, many legal irresponsible gun owners. I have several favorites actually. One being the 16 year old who showed up for a driver's license test with a Beretta Jetfire in the glove box. His excuse...his dad could never remember to take the gun out of the car he had been driving to put it in the next car he was going to drive. So, he bought one for every car.
Not sure how the laws read where you are, but in Colorado minors are actually not legally allowed to be in possession of a firearm without direct adult supervision. So here at least, that incident wouldn't have been a legal possession of a firearm.

But I do get what you're saying. There are irresponsible gun owners. I guess my view is skewed because the people I know are responsible gun owners, by and large, while your view may be skewed because as a deputy you generally wouldn't run into the responsible, law abiding gun owner. We tend to keep to ourselves and not raise much fuss with law enforcement.

There are also a whole lot of irresponsible automobile owners. And dog owners, and cat owners for that matter. Pretty much anything that can be owned and the responsibility of owning that piece of property abused, it will be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skippymjp
That's actually a truly excellent example to make my point. It is neither the dog nor the guns fault that they do what they do. It is the users thereof and the culture that condones it. Giving a dog a taste for blood, and telling people that "Obama wants your guns and he'll be coming to get them" is just two different instances of throwing gasoline on the same fire.
While this guy may have been motivated by the panicked cry of "Obama wants your guns", I really haven't seen that war-cry. And you know that I'm in the crowd (military-style target competitive shooters) that would be panicked by such a thing. Sure, the sale of firearms has increased since he was elected. It increased when Clinton was elected too. I think LawGuy has a pretty good stance of why. There is the "what ifs" about what he will do or sign (I'm more concerned about this Congress if they ever get around to it), because he has been very vague and flip-flopping about what he actually does support in terms of gun control.
post #55 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
The efficacy argument was actually in response to your saying that if Bundy had a stockpile of firearms he could have increased his body count in one afternoon. Which actually goes back to the Muhammed and Malvo vs. Harris and Klebold thing. Bundy, Muhammed & Malvo was methodical and organized, and killed for a sense of satisfaction, while Harris & Klebold and the other spree/rampage killers did so due to rage.
I'm sorry, very poor wording on my part. I do understand you speaking of efficiency based on what I said. I just didn't understand how you felt they were so inefficient based on the number of rounds they fired. I understood the attack to be ruthlessly efficient until their remaining victims-to-be got away or managed to hide...and then they just starting shooting up the place for the halibut.

Quote:
Not sure how the laws read where you are, but in Colorado minors are actually not legally allowed to be in possession of a firearm without direct adult supervision. So here at least, that incident wouldn't have been a legal possession of a firearm.
I was actually referring to the Dad being unable to keep up with where he left his gun(s), not the boy himself. I sent him/car/gun home to regroup and come back the next day.

Quote:
But I do get what you're saying. There are irresponsible gun owners. I guess my view is skewed because the people I know are responsible gun owners, by and large, while your view may be skewed because as a deputy you generally wouldn't run into the responsible, law abiding gun owner. We tend to keep to ourselves and not raise much fuss with law enforcement.
Actually, far more than one might think. In KY, it's legal to keep a pistol in your car's glovebox, or in plain sight as long as it's out of arms reach. You can even still carry a belt gun here in plain sight, but that gets so many "suspicious person" calls that most people don't bother, they just get the CC permit. Personally, I've always been a .32 fan, and a little Beretta Tomcat charged with Silvertips follows me everywhere I go. Anyway, what I was saying...many, many times I would do a traffic stop, and the driver would have their paperwork in the glovebox. I can't tell you how many would tell me there was a pistol in there too, and offered to let me get the paperwork instead. Those people I count among the very responsible.

Quote:
There are also a whole lot of irresponsible automobile owners. And dog owners, and cat owners for that matter. Pretty much anything that can be owned and the responsibility of owning that piece of property abused, it will be.

While this guy may have been motivated by the panicked cry of "Obama wants your guns", I really haven't seen that war-cry. And you know that I'm in the crowd (military-style target competitive shooters) that would be panicked by such a thing. Sure, the sale of firearms has increased since he was elected. It increased when Clinton was elected too. I think LawGuy has a pretty good stance of why. There is the "what ifs" about what he will do or sign (I'm more concerned about this Congress if they ever get around to it), because he has been very vague and flip-flopping about what he actually does support in terms of gun control.
That's why I voted for Ralph.
post #56 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
Key difference - slavery wasn't written into the Constitution.
Sure it was. It stated that slaves were "worth" 3/5 of a free person. There's a few more "token" inequities written into it, as well, but that wasn't even the point.

I give up. Viva la guns!
post #57 of 59
Isn't the topic of slavery somewhat off-topic though? We're talking about the Bill of Rights which guarantees rights to Americans. The BOR was at least amended to provide equal rights to African-Americans/Black-individuals (not sure what the PC term is these days as it seems to change). In other words, the BOR was changed to afford additional rights, not take them away - which is the way it should be IMO.

To use the example of slavery as a BOR analogy seems to be headed in the wrong direction because to properly deal with the slavery issue, we added rights, rather than taking away them which is what some people seem to advocate we do with the 2nd amendment.
post #58 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawGuy View Post
Isn't the topic of slavery somewhat off-topic though? We're talking about the Bill of Rights which guarantees rights to Americans. The BOR was at least amended to provide equal rights to African-Americans/Black-individuals (not sure what the PC term is these days as it seems to change). In other words, the BOR was changed to afford additional rights, not take them away - which is the way it should be IMO.

To use the example of slavery as a BOR analogy seems to be headed in the wrong direction because to properly deal with the slavery issue, we added rights, rather than taking away them which is what some people seem to advocate we do with the 2nd amendment.
My point from the beginning was that perhaps we should try and redefine what "rights" and "progress" were, and how sometimes they can only be defined pragmatically in accordance with evolving contexts, and not within the rigid confines of "what always has been". I admit I tend to use extremes to try and make a point, and it ends up a bit too far out of the box. Interwoven with my own lunacy, it all makes perfect sense to me when I'm writing it. Really.
post #59 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keycube View Post
My point from the beginning was that perhaps we should try and redefine what "rights" and "progress" were, and how sometimes they can only be defined pragmatically in accordance with evolving contexts, and not within the rigid confines of "what always has been".
Please don't "redefine" my rights.

I don't trust this or ANY government enough to have give up the right to bear arms.

Perhaps if one is so against guns they could go live in a country without guns instead of thinking the US should give up our right to have them. (It has worked out real well in Britain)

Outlaw guns and only the bad guys will have them. Bad idea and it will not happen. The people in this country will not stand for it. You can only push people so far and this is one thing that people will not be pushed on, trust me.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Paranoid Gun-rights advocate ambushes 3 Pittsburg police officers