Time to revisit the 2nd Amendment?

[Soxfest]

I say hell yes.

Do not make this a political issue......................the dumbass would of got a gun anyway he had to.

[Jake]

I have dealt with some shady characters, but I can't say I've ever run into a "gun dealer"

[witesoxfan]

Where's that other poster on here that used to be in a gang, tuna? did he post in this thread yet? He could probably tell everyone how easy it is to obtain illegal firearms and bulletproof vests etc. I know from experience, the kids i used to be surrounded by in high school all bragged about how easy it was to get a gun and i remember them showing me backpacks full of pistols and trunks of cars with automatic weapons, and im talking military grade stuff as in the same armor that I used in Iraq. Gun control laws? Psshh. Maybe it could work in the minds of those that have lived in cozy neighborhoods all their lives, but in neighborhoods that would make robocop malfunction, gun control means squat.

 

I don't understand personally, but I can understand the idea. I can also guarantee that, if those initial acts I suggested were put into place, the additional number of handguns sold would decrease and, upon confiscation or depreciation to the point of breakage, hopefully be less eventually. Perhaps they could do a gun trade-in where you get cash for guns too, which would take more off the street too. This was suggested a while back, but it would have to be worthwhile for the customer too.

 

 

[flippedoutpunk]

I don't understand personally, but I can understand the idea. I can also guarantee that, if those initial acts I suggested were put into place, the additional number of handguns sold would decrease and, upon confiscation or depreciation to the point of breakage, hopefully be less eventually. Perhaps they could do a gun trade-in where you get cash for guns too, which would take more off the street too. This was suggested a while back, but it would have to be worthwhile for the customer too.

 

If my firearms get taken away from me, then it puts me at risk with the type of people that are on my block. True story as of now, no one really messes with me cause im sort of like the crazy veteran on the block that people leave alone because he actually knows how to use a firearm, Doc Holliday style. If these punks knew I had no way of defending myself, im almost certain that my Mercedes would be sitting on bricks in the morning.

[BigSqwert]

Do not make this a political issue......................the dumbass would of got a gun anyway he had to.

[IlliniKrush]

I am desensitized, I deal with bad things all the time. Part of reflection is asking what could have be done differently.

 

I just do not like defeatest attitudes. If we as a society believe that less guns would improve society, then 300 million, 100 billion or 1 billion trillion guns should not deter us from trying to reach that goal. But that is the first step in this discussion, do we really want to give up guns?

 

I am willing to. I would rather die myself, than have a weapon I owned be involved in the death of someone else. I am probably not in the majority, I recognize this. But that is where the discussion really needs to start. How many of us would be okay with destroying all civilian guns tomorrow.

 

In my opinion the answer is not the majority. So until then we are stuck with what we have. Which is why in my opinion the best solution is to allow states, cities, etc to create their own rules. If citizens of Chicago are okay with only criminals having guns and are fine with that risk, so be it. If Texas wants to allow rocket launchers, so be it.

 

I do not believe I can change the mind of everyone in America, but I do believe that as American's we should have the right to determine whether we can collectively agree that we do not need to have guns to survive.

Good post here. I compare this to the steroid era in baseball. Everyone else is using...do it or fall behind. Everyone else has guns, you need one to be safe (not me, but that's a mentality). And it just multiplies. If you knew no one around you had a gun, there wouldn't be a great need to have one.

 

It's getting to the point where it's almost Darwinism to some. Too many guns and too many people out there breaking the law, stealing, harming others, etc., so adapt and survive.

Edited December 14, 2012 by IlliniKrush

[RockRaines]

People who fight with guns are p*****s IMO. Unfortunately since alot of those p*****s reside in Chicago I have to own one so I can clip a motherf***er if he tries to break in and hurt my family. I would rather have zero guns.

[flippedoutpunk]

People who fight with guns are p*****s IMO. Unfortunately since alot of those p*****s reside in Chicago I have to own one so I can clip a motherf***er if he tries to break in and hurt my family. I would rather have zero guns.

 

Agreed 100% I would honestly rather have no guns, then I could brazilian jiu-jitsu these punks to death.

[Texsox]

26 people, still on the floor of their school, slowly getting cold, waiting to be transported to the morgue.

 

Nice thread y'all.

[BigSqwert]

26 people, still on the floor of their school, slowly getting cold, waiting to be transported to the morgue.

 

Nice thread y'all.

 

With the number of murders by gunfire that occurs on a daily basis in this country it looks like we'll need to stay silent indefinitely in order to mourn. The NRA and Congress is happy to hear your viewpoint.

[BigSqwert]

Stolen from the Daily Dish:

Guns don't kill people - people do. By the same token, planes don't kill people - people flying them into buildings do. And yet, I recall that we immediately and decisively worked to keep deranged people from gaining possession of planes when a handful of those people used them as tools of mass murder; indeed, we made it much more difficult for the overwhelming majority of peaceful, law-abiding citizens to board a plane.

[Swingandalongonetoleft]

This is going to sound cold as hell, but if you want to live in a free society, you are going to have to accept that there are going to be body counts for that freedom.

 

This is a perfect summation of my thoughts not just on gun control, but just about every controversial political issue. I might not necessarily agree with the pro-choice movement, for example, but in the spirit of why America was founded in the first place, I have to accept that there are those who do. I can remain true to my stance by simply not engaging in the issue in question.

 

You can't satisfy everyone in a Democracy.

[daa84]

I haven't read a single post in here but I want to say a couple things. I am in favor of stiffer gun control. Not to prevent things like Shady Hook - I believe things like that would happen regardless because the people who do this are so deranged and yet at the same time have no criminal background that would pop up on background checks. The things stiffer gun control will prevent are the random dumbass 76ers fan who has no reason to have a gun on the train, but does, and shoots when some bulls fan talks trash.

 

[Reddy]

Take two minutes to sign this petition if you think it's finally the time to have a discussion about guns on a national scale.

 

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/i...mpaign=shorturl

[Chicago White Sox]

People who fight with guns are p*****s IMO. Unfortunately since alot of those p*****s reside in Chicago I have to own one so I can clip a motherf***er if he tries to break in and hurt my family. I would rather have zero guns.

Oh god, I'd love to hear what neighborhood you live in. Life must be rough in Lincoln Park or the Gold Coast. And I'm not trying to pass judgement on your economic status, I've lived in Lakeview for six plus years. I just find this kind of talk from people living in nice areas of the city to be quite comical.

 

Our 4-unit condo building was broken into about six months ago, while I was in the building, and I don't feel the need to have a gun in my unit for my family's safety. This s*** happens EVERYWHERE, both in the Chicago suburbs and other major cities. Please stop using Chicago as a reason for needing to own a firearm unless you live in one areas that has a real problem.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Chicago White Sox

[flippedoutpunk]

Im all for stiffer requirements for firearm ownership, I think its hard enough as is to get a firearm legally in Chicago but whatevs. You have to apply for a FOID card, get your background checked by the state police, wait a couple months to receive it, then go to Cabellas and purchase a gun, wait 72 hours to actually get it as your background gets checked AGAIN, then you pick it up after the third day, THEN responsible gun owners get their firearms registered with the Chicago police department. People make it seem like you can waltz into Bass Pro Shop and buy the thing even with a background of domestic violence or anything else that would be on your record, and then stick it in your pocket and go on a redneck rampage right away. Meanwhile, in the bad areas of Chicago, gangmembers very easily and illegally obtain weapons of their choice, most of them with the serial numbers scratched off.

 

Chicago is one of the top cities for gun violence in America, and yet chicago has some of the stricter policies on gun ownership in America, no concealed carry, background checks up the wazoo, so how is that even possible with all these gun laws you guys love to force down everyones throats? The city says street gangs are responsible for the bulk of the city's gun violence1 and we all know that street gangs do not operate within the law and purchase weaponry through law abiding vendors. So how the heck would your gun laws make a dent in gun violence in Chicago if they have no effect on the source of the majority of the violence?

 

1 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/f..._n_1589148.html

 

Edit: Also, Im not saying NOT to enforce tougher restrictions, because i am a law abiding citizen and there is no reason why I wouldnt be able to own a firearm, even after the next set of hoops you guys try to get me and every other law abiding citizen to jump through.. I am saying dont be upset and taking it out on lawful gun owners when these laws are ineffective against gangs and the G.D.'s and Vicelords of Chicago are still killing people and hitting innocent adults and children in drive-bys across the city.

Edited December 15, 2012 by flippedoutpunk

[Wanne]

Good luck disarming or confiscating the nearly 400M weapons already out there...then we'd pretty much be like inner city Chicago or Detroit! Look...I've stated I'm all for more strict screening for gun purchases and all...but what good would an assault weapon ban do right now without any sort of confiscation? And they aren't even the problem really.

 

I'm all for some gun control/screening...but it's a little too late. Every time something like this happens everybody's up in arms over it...and would it really change anything? It's our culture. The disintegration of the American family has been in place for going on 40 years. High divorce rates, drugs, poverty, violent video games and what I've always complained about for years....the utter CRAP they show in movies and television and claim it's "our right to freedom of speech". That right is ok but our 2nd Amendment right isn't? How can you legislate morality when it comes to what they air on the most influential part of person's life since they were a little kid (TV). But it's ALL THOSE EVIL GUNS fault?!? And they GLORIFY the shooting, killing, violence in movies and tv. How about getting to the root of the problem. This has been in place for years!

 

Personally...I don't want to become England or any other Euro country. Let them deal with their own crap. And again...the United States is the fly in the ointment when it comes to the Global Government that I think everyone is eventually heading towards with our pals at the UN. Disarm us and we're screwed IMO. It's not the guns fault...it's how society has digressed over the past 40 years.

 

[StrangeSox]

It took less than 24 hours, but the NRA-sponsored argument to “arm the teachers!” is being field-tested, as noted by Erik, and as illustrated in a charming graphic, circulating on facebook, extolling the virtues of a “staff heavily armed and trained . . . any attempt to harm the children will be met with deadly force”.

 

Ultimately, such an asinine, idiotic argument serves to defend a mythic mis-interpretation of our 2nd Amendment rights. So let’s talk about the rights that we do have, or should have, in a modern society.

 

Sorry, assholes, but my six year old daughter has more of a right to attend her f***ing elementary school without fear. Her teacher has the right to concentrate on excellence in pedagogy and not in SWAT tactics. I have the right as a university professor to assume that when the door to my lecture hall opens, as it does five times per hour, it’s another late student, and not my long awaited chance to unholster the Glock I’m packing in order to pop off a couple untrained rounds in playing hero.

 

When I go to a shopping mall in Clackamas County, where I live while in Oregon (I’m there now, indeed I arrived at PDX just a couple hours after the now forgotten Clackamas Town Center shooting on Tuesday), I have the right to not worry about not only some over-armed deranged soul taking out his frustrations and insecurities and self-perceived failures on the general population, but likewise I shouldn’t have to wonder how many of my fellow shoppers are armed, untrained, yet itching for the chance for a righteous firefight, especially after three post work beers. Because nothing makes me feel safer than eight or ten well meaning “good guys” trying to take out the one lunatic against the backdrop of 10,000 holiday shoppers.

 

Our response, as a society, should be to examine the multitude of reasons why these events kick off. One thing should be perfectly f***ing clear, however. Introduce readily available firearms, especially those that no recreational pursuit requires, the efficiency of the slaughter increases tremendously. As we all know, on the same day as Sandy Hook, CT, a similar rampage happened in China. The lunatic in China was armed with only a knife, not two side arms and an AR4 .223.

 

And holy crap! No children in China died. 22 wounded. Nine went to hospital, two in serious condition.

 

Did I mention that no children died in China?

 

The response of a significant component of our population in the United States is to arm the teachers, not question the underlying conditions and assumptions that brought us here. I’m not at all sorry when I say this: that’s f***ing ridiculous.

 

I don’t mind guns, I’ve liked hunting, I’ve been known to be a pretty decent shot, but the asinine line “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is bulls***.

 

Guns make the killing a hell of a lot more efficient.

 

And I’m thankful that my six year old daughter goes to school in England, because if “arm the teachers!” is the best that we can do here, we’ve blown right past the Gilded Age and are plowing head on to a return to medieval times.

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-arme...-183593571.html

 

Clackamas man, armed, confronts mall shooter

 

 

by Mike Benner

Bio | Email | Follow: @MikeBennerKGW

Posted on December 14, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Updated today at 10:32 AM

 

PORTLAND -- Nick Meli is emotionally drained. The 22-year-old was at Clackamas Town Center with a friend and her baby when a masked man opened fire.

"I heard three shots and turned and looked at Casey and said, 'are you serious?,'" he said.

The friend and baby hit the floor. Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, positioned himself behind a pillar.

"He was working on his rifle," said Meli. "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side."

The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.

"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.

Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.

"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."

The gunman was dead, but not before taking two innocent lives with him and taking the innocence of everyone else.

"I don't ever want to see anyone that way ever," said Meli. "It just bothers me."

[StrangeSox]

Wow, look at that, the gun made zero difference because the guy (thankfully) realized he could actually have made the situation worse by trying to play the hero in a shootout. Kinda like what happened when Gabby Giffords was shot in the the head.

[greg775]

So let's just do nothing. Next time it happens, probably in a week or so. We will just say f*** this crazy guy and go about our business. Remember now is not the time to talk about gun laws!

 

Repeat. Every week or so.

 

This is what's crazy. It is going to happen in another week or two or month. Crazy people, and/or evil people are totally thinking about making a splash. Any of us, anywhere could be killed. Heaven forbid it happen at a basketball game at some college or high school arena when security is lax. Just like the movie theatre and school, people would all be sitting ducks. Something has to be done to attack this problem IMO. Maybe if guns are harder to come by, some of the nutjobs/evil people will figure it's too tough to pull off and merely kill themselves or better yet, get some help, and live.

Edited December 15, 2012 by greg775

[EvilMonkey]

Wow, look at that, the gun made zero difference because the guy (thankfully) realized he could actually have made the situation worse by trying to play the hero in a shootout. Kinda like what happened when Gabby Giffords was shot in the the head.

I thought everyone who carried was a gun-toting crazy man hell bent on recreating wild west shootouts at a moments notice? And at least according to this guy, the gunman shot himself after seeing another armed person there aiming at him.

[StrangeSox]

I thought everyone who carried was a gun-toting crazy man hell bent on recreating wild west shootouts at a moments notice?

 

Nope, that's a silly strawman of what people who want to try to do something to stop these routine mass shootings actually say.

 

And at least according to this guy, the gunman shot himself after seeing another armed person there aiming at him.

 

Really? That's not what I got out of that story at all. Nor does it make any damn sense.

[EvilMonkey]

Nope, that's a silly strawman of what people who want to try to do something to stop these routine mass shootings actually say.

 

 

 

Really? That's not what I got out of that story at all. Nor does it make any damn sense.

From posts you made

When I go to a shopping mall in Clackamas County, where I live while in Oregon (I’m there now, indeed I arrived at PDX just a couple hours after the now forgotten Clackamas Town Center shooting on Tuesday), I have the right to not worry about not only some over-armed deranged soul taking out his frustrations and insecurities and self-perceived failures on the general population, but likewise I shouldn’t have to wonder how many of my fellow shoppers are armed, untrained, yet itching for the chance for a righteous firefight, especially after three post work beers. Because nothing makes me feel safer than eight or ten well meaning “good guys” trying to take out the one lunatic against the backdrop of 10,000 holiday shoppers.

Not 'your' words, but you posted them as if you agreed with them.

[mr_genius]

Nor does it make any damn sense.

 

It makes perfect sense. Keep in mind the vast majority of these mass killing shooters are left wing loons. The guy killing these kids was a devout Jon Stewart worshipper and loyal democrat. Remember, many Democrats are fearful cowards and only attack the weak.

 

The left wing loon shot himself in the head because it might be less painful than being shot by the police in multiple areas.