[RyanNREMTP]

Two words: Timothy McVeigh.

[razdog76]

Originally Posted by Vigilant

I believe I read that he shot her three times in the head as she slept, but either way, in my opinion, the guns were not properly secured. Even if she had them in a gun safe and he knew the combination, I say, she was still ultimately at fault.

I am going to respectfully disagree. It is irrelevant how she kept the guns secure because her son would still have been able to gain access to them if he wanted. No house is burglar proof, some are just easier than others. Most of the safes I see people storing guns, could be easily defeated with a large screwdriver.

There would still be nothing from precluding him from owning a gun anyway, so he could go buy whatever with a credit card... who would be ultimately at fault then?

[janice6]

Originally Posted by Trigger Finger

I think the President is in a situation where he HAS to do something!!! Personally, I would like to see background checks and a 10 day waiting period, at least, for everyone buying a gun. The same as in California. I don't see how this would infringe on anyone's rights.

I don't see how very old weapons are any problem, How many crimes are committed by some one with a 1880 Springfield trapdoor carbine? For that matter, how many crimes are committed by a 50 caliber BMG rifle? I only know of two, total, accross the entire U.S.

Putting more police officers on the streets with proper training and background checks is very good, It should have been done years ago. But giving them frivolous jobs to do that really won't do anything to really curb crime is pointless!! I have handled gang related murders where gang members could not get a gun so they simply stabbed the rival gangster with a knife several times, another where they beat the guy senseless with a 2X4 and a base ball bat then set him on fire with gasoline!! However it might help to prevent things like 20 or 25 people being murdered in a 3 minuet attack at a school, unless perhaps a bomb is used.

I thought I heard Obama say on the news that we need to totally enforce the gun laws we already have and I am totally in favor of that. Whatever happened to "use a gun, go to prison"?

Overall it could have been much worse and I can live with it.

It's not favorable to the bleeding hearts that also stopped Capitol Punishment for killing a cop.

[DaBigBR]

Originally Posted by razdog76

I am going to respectfully disagree. It is irrelevant how she kept the guns secure because her son would still have been able to gain access to them if he wanted. No house is burglar proof, some are just easier than others. Most of the safes I see people storing guns, could be easily defeated with a large screwdriver.

There would still be nothing from precluding him from owning a gun anyway, so he could go buy whatever with a credit card... who would be ultimately at fault then?

I agree with this. It is in the same vein as the thought that banning "assault weapons" would prevent this.

[usmc4641]

Originally Posted by Trigger Finger

I think the President is in a situation where he HAS to do something!!! Personally, I would like to see background checks and a 10 day waiting period, at least, for everyone buying a gun. The same as in California. I don't see how this would infringe on anyone's rights.

You're kidding, right?

[razdog76]

I also believe that the president and both parties are in a position where something "must" be done, but I believe that it being used as a smoke screen for both parties to hide the looming budget and debt ceiling crisis arriving in another month.

[DaBigBR]

Originally Posted by razdog76

I also believe that the president and both parties are in a position where something "must" be done, but I believe that it being used as a smoke screen for both parties to hide the looming budget and debt ceiling crisis arriving in another month.

Or vice-versa, whichever is most politically suitable at any given time.

[mattallamerican]

he should arrest himself and eric holder and the head of the atf to start anyone remember fast and furious

[razdog76]

Originally Posted by DaBigBR

Or vice-versa, whichever is most politically suitable at any given time.

Perfect response, as always.

Both sides have become zealots, making it impossible to find any common ground, and address the issues in a common sense approach.

I see a big place to start trimming fat. I am still scratching my head over the 80,000 denied transactions and 44 pinches figure... I think I would be in a lot of trouble if I took 1818 crashes, and only wrote 1 cite.

[clancy]

deleted

[Vigilant]

Originally Posted by razdog76

I am going to respectfully disagree. It is irrelevant how she kept the guns secure because her son would still have been able to gain access to them if he wanted. No house is burglar proof, some are just easier than others. Most of the safes I see people storing guns, could be easily defeated with a large screwdriver.

There would still be nothing from precluding him from owning a gun anyway, so he could go buy whatever with a credit card... who would be ultimately at fault then?

We can agree to disagree, but is this to infer that it is senseless to make at least a reasonable effort to keep our firearms secured?

I still believe we should all be required to make at least a reasonable effort to keep our firearms secured.

[razdog76]

Originally Posted by Vigilant

We can agree to disagree, but is this to infer that it is senseless to make at least a reasonable effort to keep our firearms secured?

I still believe we should all be required to make at least a reasonable effort to keep our firearms secured.

... and isn't "reasonable" inside a house with the owner in it?


Depending on how you answer, you will have to pay mall security to watch your stash while you sleep.

[Vigilant]

Originally Posted by razdog76

... and isn't "reasonable" inside a house with the owner in it?

Ordinarily, yes. But from what I have read, she knew her son had serious emotional issues. I read one account that stated that she told at least one babysitter when he was younger to not take her eyes off of him for even a moment. In such a case as that, a gun just being 'inside a house with the owner in it' is not sufficient IMHO. YMMV.

Originally Posted by razdog76

Depending on how you answer, you will have to pay mall security to watch your stash while you sleep.

HEY! Don't make fun of mall security. I want to go that route myself when I'm old enough!

[razdog76]

Originally Posted by razdog76

I also believe that the president and both parties are in a position where something "must" be done, but I believe that it being used as a smoke screen for both parties to hide the looming budget and debt ceiling crisis arriving in another month.

Let the record reflect NPR reported today that the House is going to push back the new looming cliff, ledge, mantle, or whatever we are going to call it now another three months... lets see if it happens.

[lawman800]

Originally Posted by Trigger Finger

I think the President is in a situation where he HAS to do something!!! Personally, I would like to see background checks and a 10 day waiting period, at least, for everyone buying a gun. The same as in California. I don't see how this would infringe on anyone's rights.

I live in CA still and I can't live with the CA rules.

I agree with every transaction requiring a NICS background but it should be instant and it should be no waiting like in other states.

It has worked in every other state with instant backgrounds, why not here?

Also, taking the premise that I accept the waiting period, and the justification, which I don't, it makes no sense for subsequent purchases. The premise is that they want the buyer to have time to cool down in case he wants to walk in a store to buy a gun to kill someone. Well, okay, that might stand to reason for the first gun, but if I am already a gun owner, what's the point of making me wait on subsequent purchases? If you are going to make me wait ten days for a first purchase, then there should be no more waiting for future purchases.

Don't forget all the other onerous requirements in CA, such as only 1 handgun purchase a month, Handgun Safety Certificate requirement which is just a scam to rip money off with no increase in safety or education, the skills handling test demonstration for the dealer prior to taking delivery, proof of residency with two forms of ID/utility bill or whatever, mandatory purchase of a firearm lock with gun purchases, and extra safety fees on the transfer fees for firearm safety education which they have never instituted.

[txleapd]

Originally Posted by Morris

He would have had my interest and potential support if he had said, "Hey! Here's a novel idea! How about we enforce the laws already in effect. How about we get some lazy federal prosecutors willing to step up on gun crimes. How about we clean our house first before we tell everyone to clean theirs."

What a novel idea...

I worked a case last year that highlights the Fed's refusal to enforce the gun laws we already have on the books.

A wanted felon, who escaped from Federal custody, used a [stolen] gun to rob a store.

The AUSA refused prosecution on the Federal Felon in Possession charge. Here's the irony... When he escaped from [federal] custody, he was doing a 5 year stint for FELON IN POSSESSION.

It almost took an act of Congress to get the AUSA to prosecute for the Escape charge... Freaking ridiculous.




Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[janice6]

I still believe that if a "Bad guy" robs the town bank, you shouldn't put all the citizens of the town in jail to prevent it happening again.

[lawman800]

Originally Posted by janice6

I still believe that if a "Bad guy" robs the town bank, you shouldn't put all the citizens of the town in jail to prevent it happening again.

You got it all wrong.

If the bad guys rob a bank, you confiscate all the money from the law abiding citizens so there is nothing for the robber to rob.

[hotpig]

This whole gun grab scheme that is going on has drove me 360 degrees from my old beliefs.

Owning a fire arm or many fire arms are the birth right of a American. It is not a privilege that the Government allows. It is a inherent right. That righ shall not be infringed.

A back ground check is a infringement. A waiting period is a infringement. competent adult that wants a gun is guaranteed by the law of the land that they could have one. That law can not be changed by Congress, A President, or the People. A Constitutional Amendment is the only way to change it.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by lawman800

You got it all wrong.

If the bad guys rob a bank, you confiscate all the money from the law abiding citizens so there is nothing for the robber to rob.

No, no, taxes are high enough already!!

[RussP]

Originally Posted by txleapd

What a novel idea...

I worked a case last year that highlights the Fed's refusal to enforce the gun laws we already have on the books.

A wanted felon, who escaped from Federal custody, used a [stolen] gun to rob a store.

The AUSA refused prosecution on the Federal Felon in Possession charge. Here's the irony... When he escaped from [federal] custody, he was doing a 5 year stint for FELON IN POSSESSION.

It almost took an act of Congress to get the AUSA to prosecute for the Escape charge... Freaking ridiculous.

This is the problem. I've talked to lots of cops, agents and whatever DOJ guys are called, in 10 or so states. Everyone of them said the combination of lax prosecution, ridiculous plea deals, and lenient sentencing is the curse on LE.

Putting these people back on the street after 1, 2, 5 years, or immediately in some cases, also makes it hard to get the good guys to inform on the bad guys. I've personally seen the look, the expression, when a person is told the really bad guy they outed plea bargained and will be back in a year or sooner. Horrific fear is putting it mildly.

[merlynusn]

While I could live with the background checks for all sales, that isn't the issue. The issue is these EOs are basically the first step. This is to get everyone used to new regulations so they go "Oh, those aren't so bad." Then he'll start in on the bad ones.

I don't trust them, especially considering their stated intentions (AWB, etc), and their actions (USSC nominees, F&F, etc).

[Vigilant]

Originally Posted by merlynusn

While I could live with the background checks for all sales, that isn't the issue. The issue is these EOs are basically the first step. This is to get everyone used to new regulations so they go "Oh, those aren't so bad." Then he'll start in on the bad ones.

I don't trust them, especially considering their stated intentions (AWB, etc), and their actions (USSC nominees, F&F, etc).

Very well said.

[Southswede]

Originally Posted by Trigger Finger

I think the President is in a situation where he HAS to do something!!!

How about enforcing the laws already on the books?/!

I do not trust ANYTHING this president has to say. If people are saying they think these things are reasonable, I am immediately suspicious.......

This president refuses to follow his sworn mandate.

[Southswede]

Originally Posted by janice6

I still believe that if a "Bad guy" robs the town bank, you shouldn't put all the citizens of the town in jail to prevent it happening again.

Bravo!!!!