Yes Dave, it's time to raise the issue again

[twich54]

Given the current political environment, the likelihood of this occurring is next to nil.

so long as the likes of Dianne Feinstein have a say I remain leery Gordon.

In my view the NRA, along with their ardent supporters, do themselves more harm than good by accepting this as a reality and not being pro-active to eliminate the availability of assault weapons / accessories to the general public.

again, while I agree with you here for the most part there are exceptions, legal ownership of such weapons and cooresponding competitive events that they are used in. Remember what I said earlier about anti-gun people having little to no knowledge about firearms..........well if I could find the statement made by Ms Feinstein some time ago when she catagorized all semi-automatic weapons as 'assault weapons' you would understand, albeit somewhat, the NRA's position. BTW, I utlize a 'semi-automatic weapon' quite often.....my Benelli super sport 12 ga shotgun that I love to obliterate clay pigeons with !

In the end I pray for common sense to pervail....but as you stated, "given the current political enviroment, the likelihood is nil"

 

[Kevin]

Kevin,

Thank you for your participation.

Regarding your last post, I have a very hard time accepting the "creep" theory. That is, once one starts to regulate, you will open the door to further regulations. Given the current political environment, the likelihood of this occurring is next to nil.

In my view the NRA, along with their ardent supporters, do themselves more harm than good by accepting this as a reality and not being pro-active to eliminate the availability of assault weapons / accessories to the general public.

Gordon

I'm not a member of the NRA, and never have been. Not against them either. I don't think having more stringent background checks or limiting high capacity clips infringes upon my freedom to own firearms. We have freedom of speech, but you aren't allowed to incite a riot. But I'm not sure at all about the creep thing. There are a good number of people who just want to have guns banned outright. Knowing they probably can't do it with one big push, why not just chip away at it one piece at a time?

Cheers-

Kevin

 

[Gordon Gray]

Portland, Or.

Newtown, Conn.

Where next?

At what point does the status quo become unacceptable?

GG

PS: Nothing personal Dave. I know you and other responsible gun owners are not the issue. But this seems to be so out of control.

Regarding Ms. Feinstein, I would speculate her views may have been influenced by the Harvey Milk assassination.

 

[twich54]

Gordon, even I have become 'sickened' over this nonesense, I draw the line with children, for I believe anyone that harms a child should be eliminated from the face of the earth. I pray we (as a civilized society) can resolve this. This Conn nightmare is one which I pray will bring a rational solution to move forward with.......ASAP !

 

[Gordon Gray]

So my friend, the question remains.

Will any elected official have the balls to take on the gun lobby?

I really wish sensible folks like you could somehow have some impact.

Just did some checking on available clip sizes for the 9mm.

Typical is 9 to 15.

Glock make a 33 round clip for certain models.

It's on backorder.

Gordon

 

[Kevin]

I told a lady friend today that I would turn in all of my guns, if I thought that another child would not be harmed.

Guns have been around for a long time. Half the guns I own are antiques passed down from my relatives. So why are we seeing today more and more of these losers, that seem to have nothing much to live for themselves. So they get 'something' in creating suffering for others. I don't get it. Pass the gun laws to limit the number of people perhaps shot in situations such as this, but in my opinion, that still hasn't touched the true source of the problem.

One thing for sure, I'm going home tonight and giving my child an extra hug.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Kevin,

Very noble of you to offer.

Bottom line. This county is obsessed with guns and with the massive availability of weapons comes the reality (as again witnessed today) the likelihood that a "wack job" can obtain and these senseless killings will continue.

 

[twich54]

One thing for sure, I'm going home tonight and giving my child an extra hug.

I just got home, I had to drive and give both of my grandsons an extra big hug.

I just can't make sense of this, nor should I, for there is no reason. Lord help us...

 

[Gordon Gray]

Yes my friend,

An extra big hug because you are a caring, responsible person and, because we as a country, have reason to fear for our children's safety as a result of our current, insane gun policies.

Hopefully, this will end the NRA mantra (and those who agree with this senseless, baseless logic) that guns don't kill, people kill.

Best,

Gordon

PS: The Federal Government needs to say FU to the NRA and ban assault weapons sales for public consumption and "clips" over ten bullets.

 

[Kevin]

Kevin,

Very noble of you to offer.

Bottom line. This county is obsessed with guns and with the massive availability of weapons comes the reality (as again witnessed today) the likelihood that a "wack job" can obtain and these senseless killings will continue.

Well, I also have to think that knowing that guys like this are out there, I probably need a good gun in the closet for my families protection more than ever. At least where I live, guns were plentiful when I was young and lots of young guys had access to them. That would have been about 30 years ago. Our high school was always closed on the opening day of deer season, because half the school wouldn't have shown up that day if it were open. But that any of us could have shot our mother in the face, and once again turn the gun onto babies would have been unimaginable. I agree that guns are the tools being used, but what is causing the behavior? I have my ideas, but admittedly I'm old fashioned.

 

[twich54]

Hopefully, this will end the NRA mantra (and those who agree with this senseless, baseless logic) that guns don't kill, people kill.

Right now I believe we (as a Nation) need to get through this emotional time and REGARDLESS of ones political prefrence come to grips with a common sense approach to 'gun control....for the times'. Myself a life long NRA member hope and pray that even the NRA will embrace such policy....my emotions have run amuck today as I'm sure every parent and grandparent can attest to.

If the priliminary reports are accurate , what was this supposed mother of a mentally unstable son doing with unsecured (albeit legal) guns in her house to begin with ? As much as I think the judicial system is flawed, Rich points out (and I agree) we need to pro-actively deal with this as close to the 'source' as possible. Tighter NATIONAL (all states must comply) mandatory background checks of the purchaser along with all members of his or her residence perhaps. My head is not clear now, I'm sure their are other common sense and rational suggestions as well.

I encourage all to write / twitter /tweet/ email their elected local officals, both State and Federal to TELL THEM.....get off your respective 'arses' and get this dialouge moving forward. I also believe 'we' need to reach out for the support of the NRA.......yeah I know you think I may be nuts here, but the majority of it's members are responsible people. Myself I will be writing to my representatives as well as the NRA.

I still believe we can preserve the second amendment, but after today even I , am starting to wonder at what cost.

 

[Rich]

I don't know what the answer is. But given our history and the prevalence of guns and gun culture in this country, I don't believe it is possible for us to restrict gun ownership in the way that, for instance, Britain does. We must find workable solutions to deal with these issues though, as it keeps happening more and more. I think some reasonable restrictions are necessary. Things like like limiting clip sizes, perhaps prohibiting certain types of guns (i.e. "assault rifles") and stricter prequalifications for gun owners and much more stringent background checks, etc. And maybe even raising the age for purchase. An eighteen year old can't buy alcohol legally, but can buy a handgun -- what is wrong with this picture?. But ultimately, I think I feel similar to what Kevin has expressed in this thread . . . that regulation of firearms isn't going to solve this problem because it doesn't get to the root of it. We have got to figure out a way to deal with those in this country that are afflicted with mental illness. Currently, we do almost nothing to deal with these people. Many of the dregs of society -- the drug addicts, the homeless, etc. -- are the way they are because they are mentally ill. And those who have a deep psychosis, like schizophrenia or various personality disorders, are the ones who have the potential to become psychopaths and mass murderers. We have got to find a way to diagnose these people and force them into treatment. Personal liberty works great for sane persons. But insanity is a whole 'nother ball of wax, and I am not sure the benefits of protecting the liberties of these people outweigh the detriments to society that they cause.

 

[amey01]

I don't know what the answer is. But given our history and the prevalence of guns and gun culture in this country, I don't believe it is possible for us to restrict gun ownership in the way that, for instance, Britain does.

Why not?

You're one of the last countries in the world that does not. And when you look at countries with more lenient gun laws, the US stands out as one of the very few sophisticated/civilised nations. The similarities are with countries like North Korea and Pakistan.

How many times can this keep happening?

 

[Rich]

Why not?

You're one of the last countries in the world that does not. And when you look at countries with more lenient gun laws, the US stands out as one of the very few sophisticated/civilised nations. The similarities are with countries like North Korea and Pakistan.

How many times can this keep happening?

Why not? Because the public doesn't want it, that's why. Because firearm ownership is a cherished right that goes back to the founding of our country, that's why. And because of statistics like these: Guns in America It would basically take a Constitutional amendment to put any serious limitations on firearms in place in this country, and that is virtually impossible to do without 2/3 of the nation being on board. Simply not going to happen.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Dave,

I fully agree. The NRA has to be involved if anything constructive is to occur moving forward.

Chances of that happening? Next to nil given their apparent / long held paranoia about the "creep" paradigm.

Maybe they will surprise us. I think if enough NRA members, who oppose the sale of assault weapons and large "clips" work the "grass roots", it may have an impact.

I truly hope so.

Gordon

 

[Ps68]

Why not? Because the public doesn't want it, that's why. Because firearm ownership is a cherished right that goes back to the founding of our country, that's why. And because of statistics like these: Guns in America It would basically take a Constitutional amendment to put any serious limitations on firearms in place in this country, and that is virtually impossible to do without 2/3 of the nation being on board. Simply not going to happen.

Very sadly then, these tragedies will continue. Clearly there is too much nostalgia and sentiment placed on these creations designed to take the lives of helpless women & children. In Britain, we accept and fully endorse the ban of weapons. We have had tragedies such as Hungerford and Dunblane, resulting in the necessary law change. If the US wants change, it will happen, if not, then there will be more and more of these events in part due to the constant media coverage worldwide.

 

[amey01]

Why not? Because the public doesn't want it, that's why. Because firearm ownership is a cherished right that goes back to the founding of our country, that's why. And because of statistics like these: Guns in America It would basically take a Constitutional amendment to put any serious limitations on firearms in place in this country, and that is virtually impossible to do without 2/3 of the nation being on board. Simply not going to happen.

This I fully understand. However I don't believe "cherishing gun ownership" and "limitations on firearms" are mutually exclusive. Here we also cherish gun ownership, but there are [what I would call anyway] sensible limitations on that, such as strict licencing (to ensure they stay out of the hands of known criminals and the mentally unstable) and bans on high power and high fire-rate firearms.

Noone's saying "ban all guns"! I would like to think (for your sake) that the second amendment and sensible restrictions can co-exist.

Sort of like motoring enthusiasts can still be motoring enthusiasts, however in society they must do so with certain restrictions such as speed limits to ensure the safety of all.

Gun ownership here is a privilege and something to be respected - certainly noone would consider it a constitutional right.

 

[zaphod]

I found this article an interesting read. Neil MacDonald is a Canadian news commenter living in the US. Outside views from the inside. Interesting as some of the points have been raised on this forum.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/16/f-rfa-macdonald-guns.html

 

[twich54]

zap, agreed an interesting read as was some of the various feedback that it got.

While it is so incredibly sad, these recent series of senseless murders, one thing that came about at my local gun club yesterday while we were shooting sporting clays was talk that the NRA should either extend the olive branch or 'grab it' it if extended to them. I suggested that we as a club draft a letter to the NRA with as many signatures as we can muster voicing our middle of the road approach. Of the 40-50 guys and gals shooting yesterday I'd say that at least 30 of them agreed on this, so we shall see what happens next week (I voluntered to pen the letter.......and yes I will use spell check !)

 

[zaphod]

a "ground roots" motion from gun clubs (ie: compatriots of the NRA) would likely do a lot more than a top-down forcing of rules via attempted legislation.