At least 26 dead in shooting at Connecticut elementary school

[Indy60]

I meant to add that yes I would utilize the database.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I believe he said he would give up his guns, not yours or the second amendment. That is a personal sacrifice and a personal choice.

He said what he said in direct response (and insult) to someone else stating that he would not give up the right without any reference to specific individual weapons.

You are right that the two are entirely different concepts, but again, that statement was issued as an argument against the person who would not give up the right. I can't help the fact that he put a bend in his response away from the position against which he was arguing, specifically excoriating another member for unwillingness to give up the right.

 

[Cat-Herder]

Question for the audience. If everybody had access to Instant Gun Check system, and we had a better handle on the mental health of an individual, would you use it for FTF transactions? Ignore the logistics and assume the system could handle it. No restrictions, just a way to check for past criminal history, etc.

Not picking sides or trying to start an argument, just curious.

Yes. Especially if they don't have a LTCH. As it is, I don't do many gun SALES, and the pink is a requirement to get a handgun from me.
I do a lot of trading, and I archive my emails and correspondence just in case I ever have some 'splainin' to do...
Also, I don't do much trading/buying/selling off INGO, so I use rep/itrader, and posts to check people out.
It would be nice to be able to run somebody you've never met to make sure they're on the level before selling them a deadly weapon. But...not gonna happen.

 

[Indy60]

You sir, show your character. I would give up ALL my firearms to bring even one of these children back. In fact, I would gladly give my life to bring one of them back.

I believe "my" in the above post to be possessive in the singular sense. I did not read his response with any bend or reference to give up his 2nd amendment rights. I took this statement above as a factual personal wish and a willingness to make a personal sacrifice.

He said what he said in direct response (and insult) to someone else stating that he would not give up the right without any reference to specific individual weapons.

You are right that the two are entirely different concepts, but again, that statement was issued as an argument against the person who would not give up the right. I can't help the fact that he put a bend in his response away from the position against which he was arguing, specifically excoriating another member for unwillingness to give up the right.

 

[coltaceguy]

Oh lordy

"Well maybe its okay to ban ASSAULT WEAPONS if we get to keep our fudd guns".

Give me a break, where the hell does the 2nd amendment say ANYTHING about what "type" of firearm is okay to own?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I believe "my" in the above post to be possessive in the singular sense. I did not read his response with any bend or reference to give up his 2nd amendment rights. I took this statement above as a factual personal wish and a willingness to make a personal sacrifice.

Damn you, read the post to which he is responding. If you can manage that small bit of thought and effort, it will make perfect sense. Without being taken in context WHICH I PROVIDED IN MY POST it will not make sense.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Oh lordy

"Well maybe its okay to ban ASSAULT WEAPONS if we get to keep our fudd guns".

Give me a break, where the hell does the 2nd amendment say ANYTHING about what "type" of firearm is okay to own?

Actually, it doesn't say anything about firearms, period, let alone type. Odd how many people don't notice that. "Firearms" is only one subset of the much broader category of "arms".

 

[ocsdor]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RablPaIREkk[/ame]

 

[Miles42]

Great now we can fight among ourselves and the gun grabbers are smiling. Divide and conquer. Simple concept.

 

[BravoMike]

Actually, it doesn't say anything about firearms, period, let alone type. Odd how many people don't notice that. "Firearms" is only one subset of the much broader category of "arms".

Normally I agree with what you type here on INGO, but this post has me scratching my head. Maybe I am not understanding you here, but I agree with the post that you are quoting. The 2A doesn't say anything about what type of arms we have the right to bear. Historically (even back when it was written) the intent of the 2A has implied firearms and this has been upheld in the supreme court several times.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Great now we can fight among ourselves and the gun grabbers are smiling. Divide and conquer. Simple concept.

I would take this idea and focus narrowly that so long as part of the gun-owning community is willing to throw the remainder under the bus in exchange for being left alone themselves, none of us are in a good condition. If you follow the history of gun laws in Britain and in the United States, the Brits are generally the first to arrive with our laws more or less following the same pattern. The gun grabbers won't be happy until the time that there is nothing left that burns gunpowder. Unfortunately, we have far too many people who think that if they are willing to 'sacrifice' the guns that were the target of the AWB, then the lefties will go away and leave them at peace with their Fudd guns, when nothing could be further from the truth.

This creates multiple problems.

First, the battle has been lost when we concede that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to keep and bear arms regardless of class or specific description. While I generally don't make an issue out of it by lack of having any particular need at this point, this would take in knives, swords, bows, crossbows, and firearms. I would also understand it to take in most any weapon period, but I don't want to start a secondary argument about 'destructive devices' and nuclear bombs.

Second, given that the primary purpose of the Second Amendment was defense against enemies foreign and domestic (i.e., securing the health and longevity of the Constitution and the republic), our resident cowards are throwing away the weapons most relevant to that purpose.

Third, our intrepid Fudds apparently fail to understand that the same people who want rid of the weapons attacked by the AWB want rid of ALL guns. They simply started by targeting those with the narrowest base of supporters and the most utility for preserving freedom first. These same people as a rule hate hunting and value animals more than they value most people. Not only do they want rid of all guns and passionately want to eliminate all hunting, truth be told, they want rid of a pretty good percentage of us. One example which comes to mind is Paul Watson, who left Greenpeace under less than amicable terms because he was too radical for the organization, and is now in charge of Sea Shepherd which he founded after separating from Greenpeace, and has had his most recent claim to fame in form of the series 'Whale Wars'. To be sure, the man is as nutty as a can of cashews, but one among many crazy things he has advocated is the reduction of the earth's human population to, if I remember correctly, approximately 500,000 people WHO MUST SHARE HIS COMMITMENT TO POPULATION REDUCTION/STABILIZATION AT THIS ARBITRARY NUMBER. Google is my friend!

Watson said:

“We need to radically and intelligently reduce human population to fewer than one billion. We need to eliminate nationalism and tribalism and become Earthlings. And as Earthlings, we need to recognize that all the other species that live on this planet are also fellow citizens and also Earthlings. This is a planet of incredible diversity of life-forms; it is not a planet of one species as many of us believe.”

Unfortunately, he is representative of many among us (incidentally including Bob Barker who gives him tons of money). Now, if the Fudds among us are still feeling comfortable, they are in for a rude surprise at some point in the future, and probably not too distant if they are willing to throw a large portion of gun owners in the bus in the hopes of being able to cozy up and play nice with their enemies.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Normally I agree with what you type here on INGO, but this post has me scratching my head. Maybe I am not understanding you here, but I agree with the post that you are quoting. The 2A doesn't say anything about what type of arms we have the right to bear. Historically (even back when it was written) the intent of the 2A has implied firearms and this has been upheld in the supreme court several times.

Don't be too harsh with him. He was simply reminding us that the Second Amendment takes in all arms, not just firearms. I generally don't spend the time to deal with this since there isn't any argument aside from firearms in most cases and I am sure that there are others who haven't even considered that there are non-firearm arms that fall under that umbrella.

 

[newdumdum9825]

****ing justin bieber fans were callin bull **** cause the shooting interupted ellen!!!!

 

[lizerdking]

"""At least three guns were found — a Glock and a Sig Sauer, both pistols, inside the school, and a .223-caliber rifle in the back of a car, authorities said."""

Taken from fox8's website.....

Was the AR even a factor? Yet it's the main focus of the media?

I try so damn hard not to fall into the conspiracy theorist category.... I hope and pray and want to believe we live in a world where things like this shouldn't come to mind.

The mind starts to wander... Was it a plant? Lucky coincidence? Misinformation? I'm not saying I believe it to be, I wish we didn't live in a society that has filled me with the belief that evil men are capable of despicable things, the mere fact I've had this thought makes me cringe.

I had the unfortunate experience of sitting in a restaurant that was playing the piers morgan crap tonight, it's already been politicized, don't flame me, I have a daughter and I've shed tears twice today at the thought of it all.

 

[worddoer]

I'm watching Jay Leno and he has a PBS guest on. Most of what he is saying is the need for "sensible" gun control. He said, "no one needs a magazine that doesn't need reloaded" (by the way...I would really like one of those)..."no one needs and assault rifle"..."and handguns are far to accessible and easy to get".

What does that leave us with??? I guess all we should be allowed to have access to is lever guns, pump or single round shot guns, and revolvers. But eventually they would probably get rid of the revolvers, pump shotties and lever guns because they can fire too many rounds.

Those of us in the gun community need to decide if we are going to follow the "sporting purpose" philosophy or not. If we are...then once you think through the process, then we would eventually be limited to single shot rifles and shot guns. Think about it...isn't it all that is really needed for hunting and skeet shooting? Because when you say "sporting purposes" to the general population, that is all they can think of. Keep in mind this phrase is for the general population...not you the gun person. These are going to be the very same people who will vote for politicians who will push for gun control.

Those who say "nothing has happened after the last dozen or so shootings we have had" need to realize that now children have been involved. And most of the bad things that have been put into place in the last couple of decades were under the premise of "helping the children". This ballgame has been pushed up 5-10 levels and we just got thrown into the super bowl of gun control politics.

And if you think you can let the politicians take "those assault guns and clips" while your hunting guns will never be affected...you are deluding yourself. It will creep over the months until your hunting guns are sniper rifles and killer shotguns that do grotesque massive unneeded damage. And really...who needs to hunt when you can get everything you need from a grocery store?

If we are going to lower our denominator to what is "needed"...then we just lost. Because that has been and will always be a subjective moving target. What is "needed" is always different for every person. Do you want your guaranteed rights turned into allowed hobbies because you were willing to throw some gun people under the buss to save yourself a little time and effort?

Everyone better make up their mind quick where they stand. And we will see what happens when the ink starts to hit the paper in Washington.

 

[daedrian]

I saw that on Leno too. Made me sicker than I already was about all this.

I agree on everything you said. Everyone needs to remember that the Texas bell tower shooting was does with a bolt action. How long does anyone actually think "hunting/sporting" firearms will be safe?

 

[daedrian]

Also this... It's an older video that he reposted after this tragedy. It's a well worded, concise, and thought out response about gun free zones.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0BkNGPiuQM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0BkNGPiuQM[/ame]

 

[IndyDave1776]

Also this... It's an older video that he reposted after this tragedy. It's a well worded, concise, and thought out response about gun free zones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0BkNGPiuQM

He makes a good argument with one serious flaw--it is predicated on the notion that addressing crime is in fact the issue at hand when it is not. The actual issue is controlling people. Sarah Brady made a clear statement (under circumstances that she didn't expect it to become common knowledge) to then-senator Howard Metzenbaum (infamous rabid anti-gunner for those not old enough to remember him) that in order to impose their vision of a socialist America they must first disarm those who would oppose them. The idea is to cut our throats while convincing a majority of us that it is for our own good.

 

[BigShow]

Prayers to all the family's that lost loved ones and to this great nation.

Remember the anti abortion bombers? They were pro life, but would bomb abortion clinics and kill people. Makes me wonder also Lizerdking.

 

[Enkrypter]

The big problem in my opinion is lack of morality which comes from God. this nut must have had ethics which is dreamed up by communistic atheists

Let's leave religion out of this. God had nothing to do with today's events.

I would have words with any man who would argue that today's events were "God's Plan" and I'd choose atheism any day of the week over sharing in any part of that God's "Plan".

“Compassion is the basis of morality.”
― Arthur Schopenhauer

“Respect for ourselves guides our morals; respect for others guides our manners”
― Laurence Sterne

I voluntarily spent 18 months of my life in Iraq serving this country and people just like you, who share different beliefs. I left my home and country to help fight our enemies, protect our soldiers, and protect the lives of the innocent civilians of Iraq. I believe in our freedoms and I believe in respecting others. The USA is the greatest nation on earth. Every man in this nation has the right to believe whatever he/she chooses, and I simply choose to believe in one less deity than you. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone I served with willing to call me a communist or an immoral person.

“A moral system valid for all is basically immoral.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

The gunman spared his parents from a fate worse than death... Living with the guilt and shame their son had brought to them. No parent should ever have to live with that and I don't think it's fair to assume they were at fault until the facts are in.

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so" -- Adolf Hitler

History has shown, that religious upbringing has nothing to do with childrens' morals.

My atheist heart aches for those suffering from today's events. [Insert name here] bless the families involved in this tragic event.