The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

The only people authorized to carry a handgun in that country are either people whose job requires them to (cops, security, etc) or people who belong to a competitive handgun club and are prevented under that class H license from carrying a loaded firearm outside competition.

That isn't consistent with any of the codified law on the books as to the 2nd amendment. It would be like saying "you can have free speech" and then passing a law saying you are protected from illegal search but then only protecting the left front pocket of denim pants.

Like I said, you can't keep saying "we should do like ____" and not have any clue what those laws are and then say "I believe in CCW" and be taken seriously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I said "be like" them. I'd add hunting too, that is the backbone of society for food/gathering. I add the conceal carry part for well-trained responsible owners because I realize any measure/law without that language would be DOA anywhere. Just trying to find a middle ground that satisfies both sides. Except so far the gun side isn't willing to budge one centimeter. "Enforce the current laws on the books!" Yeah, that's not stopping the mental nutjobs from legally buying a gun and killing people and that single question about been in a mental institution is not effective.

 

[Lawman]

I said "be like" them. I'd add hunting too, that is the backbone of society for food/gathering. I add the conceal carry part for well-trained responsible owners because I realize any measure/law without that language would be DOA anywhere. Just trying to find a middle ground that satisfies both sides. Except so far the gun side isn't willing to budge one centimeter. "Enforce the current laws on the books!" Yeah, that's not stopping the mental nutjobs from legally buying a gun and killing people and that single question about been in a mental institution is not effective.

When you are only prosecuting tens to dozens of people a year for violating the NICS check either as sellers or buyers out of hundreds to thousands of violations that pop a year whiles screaming about needing more background checks, yes enforce the laws you have.

When you have people calling for laws admitting it wouldn't impact any of the mass shootings you are so in fear of but we just need to do it for "common sense" yes enforce the laws you have.

Like I said when you can reconcile the restrictions put on gun owners for any other constitutional right (speech, self incrimination, cruel and unusual punishment, etc) then you will have leave to do more than is currently being done. But when states and cities are finding 30-40 year laws on the books overturned on the unconstitutionality of those laws more laws aren't the answer. Recage the stupidity being screamed by people who just want guns gone forever from anybody and enforce the laws on the books.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

I'm all for more enforcement of the current laws on the book and don't like any prosecutor who isn't willing to take up the case and serve justice. I'm with you on that one.

Mass shootings are happening by the mentally sick who have legal access to purchase guns or from family members who are "responsible" gun owners but live in denial mode with the mental sickness family member in their house. We need an effective way to deal with this which is why I proposed a mental screening of sorts. It was countered by a "what if you were forced to do that screening" after the Germanwings FO, and I say bring it on. So as long as there is one national uniform standard, procedure, evaluation, and if incorrect equipment/malfunction/misdiagnosis, have an option for a secondary opinion/follow up, then yes I'm all for it. And I say that as an airline pilot. But gun owners can't say the same.

 

[Lawman]

I'm all for more enforcement of the current laws on the book and don't like any prosecutor who isn't willing to take up the case and serve justice. I'm with you on that one.

Mass shootings are happening by the mentally sick who have legal access to purchase guns or from family members who are "responsible" gun owners but live in denial mode with the mental sickness family member in their house. We need an effective way to deal with this which is why I proposed a mental screening of sorts. It was countered by a "what if you were forced to do that screening" after the Germanwings FO, and I say bring it on. So as long as there is one national uniform standard, procedure, evaluation, and if incorrect equipment/malfunction/misdiagnosis, have an option for a secondary opinion/follow up, then yes I'm all for it. And I say that as an airline pilot. But gun owners can't say the same.

You can't get an effective Yes/No mental screening.

As I stated pages back of your rambling we have been trying to use mental evaluation as a go/no-go criteria in parole hearings for decades and they still only achieve about a 50% success rate on evaluation.

You can't force a system to restrict a right that has that kind of default failure rate. Not when it means more people like that woman in New Jersey being killed while waiting to exercise their constitutionally protected right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pullup]

I think you both need to go outside and do something.

 

[Lawman]

I think you both need to go outside and do something.

I'm in the field so I've got nothing but time to kill mixed with intermittent 4-6 hour blocks of sitting in an aircraft.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hacker15e]

No, but you still have these types:

"The truck driver said a motorcyclist leaned against his truck in traffic and nudged it. When the motorcyclist was "popping wheelies" in front of his truck, it was at that point, the truck driver - who has a concealed weapons license - became infuriated."

Yup -- just like one Airbus pilot that intentionally flew it into the dirt.

Outliers.

 

[A Life Aloft]

I'm in the field so I've got nothing but time to kill mixed with intermittent 4-6 hour blocks of sitting in an aircraft.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well for crap's sake, go shoot/kill something. (jk)

 

[Lawman]

Well for crap's sake, go shoot/kill something. (jk)

Can't, aircraft are so broke and we don't have money to buy parts to fix them.

I gotta take some pictures of all this exorbitant military spending people keep crying about and show them why cutting our budget another 25% is insane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ian_J]

I'm in the field so I've got nothing but time to kill mixed with intermittent 4-6 hour blocks of sitting in an aircraft.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I weep for the commissioned officers who allow this to happen. There's no excuse for a warrant officer in the field to have "time to kill." Can't train them all, I guess...

 

[Lawman]

I weep for the commissioned officers who allow this to happen. There's no excuse for a warrant officer in the field to have "time to kill." Can't train them all, I guess...

Well we need Internet to do all the mandatory training since it's all online these days. And that's a bridge way to far for any S6 in the field.

What's funny/sad is watching a squadron worth of effort and manpower be expended to put up a troop+ worth of aircraft.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[A Life Aloft]

Can't, aircraft are so broke and we don't have money to buy parts to fix them.

I gotta take some pictures of all this exorbitant military spending people keep crying about and show them why cutting our budget another 25% is insane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh hell, that's just craptastic and pathetic really. So a good use of trained, and experienced men is just having them hang out? Wonderful.

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

I've got a new game. Every time I feel like jumping in this thread to point out flaws in legislative ideas, I buy a gun instead. If I post anyways, I have to give it back.

Game on!

 

[MikeD]

Can't, aircraft are so broke and we don't have money to buy parts to fix them.

Just take them from the Guard.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Yup -- just like one Airbus pilot that intentionally flew it into the dirt.

Outliers.

Not really an outlier in the United States anymore. That's the problem. How many mass shootings (as in more than 4 dead) have we had in the past 12 months alone? Then compare that to other first world developed nations. The results are still staggering.

Not when it means more people like that woman in New Jersey being killed while waiting to exercise their constitutionally protected right.

That case again? How about we classify it for exactly what it is: domestic abuse. She dated a loser, actually a known criminal, and unfortunately ultimately paid the price for it. Guns aren't the answer for domestic problems. Sure, the state was stalling getting a CCP, but this is NJ and they don't just let you strap n pack like other states. Regardless, that does NOT mean you stop doing things to help ensure your safety. Which brings back the #1 thing to keep yourself safe: if facing a place of danger, move. Leave for your safety. Why continue living there when you know it's unsafe? Even a gun can't keep you always safe. In her case perhaps it would have been prudent to leave town and go lay low with another family member somewhere until cooler head prevailed with that boyfriend.

 

[Hacker15e]

Not really an outlier in the United States anymore. That's the problem. How many mass shootings (as in more than 4 dead) have we had in the past 12 months alone? Then compare that to other first world developed nations. The results are still staggering.

Your example was one CCW holder being an idiot, and trying to apply it to the general population of CCW holders. That comparison, and discussion, has nothing at all to do with "mass shootings" or the worldwide prevalence of them. Please at least try to keep the discussion and the points on the same track.

That being said, compare the number of "mass shootings" to the number of legally owned, legally used firearms, and again...mass shootings, too, (and even including every single illegal use of a firearm) are an outlier by a huge, stastically-significant margin.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Your example was one CCW holder being an idiot, and trying to apply it to the general population of CCW holders. That comparison, and discussion, has nothing at all to do with "mass shootings" or the worldwide prevalence of them. Please at least try to keep the discussion and the points on the same track.

That being said, compare the number of "mass shootings" to the number of legally owned, legally used firearms, and again...mass shootings, too, (and even including every single illegal use of a firearm) are an outlier by a huge, stastically-significant margin.

That outlier becomes a hard to compute because the same person can legally own, legally use many firearm. Even this Michigan shooter had 11 guns (at last news media report). What's the stat, that only 37%ish of Americans own guns, but ones that do own them, own them in huge numbers.

I can't speak for the whole population of CCWs, honestly I don't even think there are studies that can be done about that.

What I will say is by natural human behavior, those that are armed are more likely to get into a situation - or intervene - when the best result could be obtained from just running away / walking away from the situation. In this car example, being the bigger person you'd just ignore the guy doing wheelies and then go about your way. Or in the Zimmerman case, walk away from Martin and wait for the police. But something specifically about having a gun gives these types of individuals that extra confidence to go ahead and get involved because they know worst case, they'll use their gun. I also hear this when some gun owners talk and how they describe people being sheep but they are not because they choose not to be. And how they are guardians of the sheep. So there are a lot of people with different motivations, but this is detracting from the main point.

 

[Lawman]

Not really an outlier in the United States anymore. That's the problem. How many mass shootings (as in more than 4 dead) have we had in the past 12 months alone? Then compare that to other first world developed nations. The results are still staggering.



That case again? How about we classify it for exactly what it is: domestic abuse. She dated a loser, actually a known criminal, and unfortunately ultimately paid the price for it. Guns aren't the answer for domestic problems. Sure, the state was stalling getting a CCP, but this is NJ and they don't just let you strap n pack like other states. Regardless, that does NOT mean you stop doing things to help ensure your safety. Which brings back the #1 thing to keep yourself safe: if facing a place of danger, move. Leave for your safety. Why continue living there when you know it's unsafe? Even a gun can't keep you always safe. In her case perhaps it would have been prudent to leave town and go lay low with another family member somewhere until cooler head prevailed with that boyfriend.

She had a restraining order, installed a security system, and apparently deserved to die? Is that what you are getting at? When you are a victim just run? Face it your backward law requirement of showing cause to carry and getting a permit to exercise a right very well cost that woman her life because her ex was able to stab her to death not afraid of the piece of paper or police response stopping him. How many more cases like this happen every year because of the social stigma of people like you telling people who ought to arm themselves that guns aren't the answer to personal protection. It's idiots like you parroting that bogus "your more likely to have your gun used against you" study that convince people to set themselves up with no option but to be victimized. How many more people see the logistical hurdles of stupidity in states like New Jersey and New York or can't "show cause" to carry a weapon and are later victimized by somebody with one? Have you noticed the sudden increase in vigilante protection going on in the NY subway system because the crime rate has returned to the bad times of 30 years ago. Gee... Maybe making a society where none of the good people can have guns but the bad people seem to not mind stabbing/shooting them wasn't such a good idea.

And I've yet to see you come up with any refute or peer reviewed study showing we can establish a go/no-go mental health criteria that actually results in constantly producing accurate results based entirely off of past behavior with little/no indicators. That's what you want isn't it? I'm sure you've done the research and aren't just parroting talking points.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MikeD]

Have you noticed the sudden increase in vigilante protection going on in the NY subway system because the crime rate has returned to the bad times of 30 years ago.

Bernard Goetz, making a comeback.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

She had a restraining order, installed a security system, and apparently deserved to die? Is that what you are getting at? When you are a victim just run? Face it your backward law requirement of showing cause to carry and getting a permit to exercise a right very well cost that woman her life because her ex was able to stab her to death not afraid of the piece of paper or police response stopping him.

Never said she deserved to die. One plays stupid games, they're probably going to win stupid prizes - even though many don't deserve it. I still stand by my advice, that in HER particular case, given the fact that he was still around and there was no conceal carry permit approved, she probably should have retreated and laid low until things boiled over and then improved.

How many more cases like this happen every year because of the social stigma of people like you telling people who ought to arm themselves that guns aren't the answer to personal protection. It's idiots like you parroting that bogus "your more likely to have your gun used against you" study that convince people to set themselves up with no option but to be victimized. How many more people see the logistical hurdles of stupidity in states like New Jersey and New York or can't "show cause" to carry a weapon and are later victimized by somebody with one? Have you noticed the sudden increase in vigilante protection going on in the NY subway system because the crime rate has returned to the bad times of 30 years ago. Gee... Maybe making a society where none of the good people can have guns but the bad people seem to not mind stabbing/shooting them wasn't such a good idea.

And I've yet to see you come up with any refute or peer reviewed study showing we can establish a go/no-go mental health criteria that actually results in constantly producing accurate results based entirely off of past behavior with little/no indicators. That's what you want isn't it? I'm sure you've done the research and aren't just parroting talking points.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I see you conveniently ignored that NJ still has a basic castle doctrine and she can own a gun IN her home and if he came in her house with the intent of stabbing her to death, she could have shot him and gotten out clean. Where was this? Wasn't she killed in her home? The conceal permit only helps when you are outside your home in a public place.

And it does happen...

http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2016/02/woman_accidentally_shoots_hers.html

Heard a noise and had a toddler with her in the motel room. "Birmingham police Sgt. Rebecca Herrera said the woman was in the motel room when she thought she heard a noise. She grabbed her gun that was under her pillow, and somehow shot herself in the chest."


As for the mental health stuff, how about previous diagnosis and treatments that are still on going? Problem also is it's on the family members of the mental-sick individuals too. Too many of live in denial mode and allow unfettered access, when perhaps that's not the best thing.