How do we protect kids in school?

Jan 8, 2013 Full story: Ruidoso News 6,103

During a newsroom discussion about guns about a decade ago, a woman piped up: "I don't understand what the big deal is.

Full Story

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#103 Feb 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Not trying to destroy "every firearm on the planet"; just semi auto rifles in the US. Some will no doubt survive. At least for awhile. But if we stay with it, we can get to 99.9% over time. Much better than what's out there now.
<quoted text>Getting rid of semi rifles is not exactly what I call "beating around the bush".
<quoted text>It's not the "law" that will affect them, the guns i'm talking about won't exist.
<quoted text>Law abiding citizens will do just fine without semi auto rifles.
<quoted text>And, in terms of these mass psycho slayings, that source TODAY is- ta da- the high capacity semi auto rifle. And I don't care if you understand that or not.
BTW, I know what I advocate is not going to occur; at least not during my life time. In the mean time, we will continue to arm ourselves with high capacity assault rifles. In another 10 or 15 years, we will look like a bunch of mid-east Arabs running around shooting them off in the air and whooping and hollering. And, in spite of all this armament, psycho mass killings will continue to occur. And to what end? SAD!
Sorry but you're barking up the wrong tree. It doesn't matter what you ban, you will only be affecting those who obey the law and they are not the problem. The weapons used by criminals and psychos are already illegal, obtained by illegal means and the acts they commit are illegal as well. How in the world do you think another law is going to make any difference? Really? You don't seem to realize that in spite all those gun laws, the psycho mass killings continue and they will continue after a plethora of new gun laws are enacted. They will continue until people wise up and attack the source. The longer we waste our time restricting law abiding citizens, the more innocent people will be subject the violence of criminals and psychos who ignore the law. The sooner we address the source, the better off we'll all be.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#104 Feb 1, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry but you're barking up the wrong tree. It doesn't matter what you ban, you will only be affecting those who obey the law and they are not the problem.
I keep telling you, BAN is not the right word. ELIMINATE, DESTROY, GET RID OF, GONE. Under my plan there won't be any semis for the psychos to get.
Try to understand, the only new gun laws I advocate would be to make illegal the manufacture, sale or possession, in the US, of any type of semi auto rifle. Under this law would be the confiscation and destruction of any semi auto rifle found in the US. I repeat ALL semi auto rifles would be DESTROYED. Like the dinosaurs, there would be NONE around. Can you understand? There won't be any for the psychos to get.
I know it's a fantasy that won't come true, primarily because of politics. But your notion of identifying and stopping a psycho from getting an AR and committing mass murder is beyond fantasy; it's ridiculous.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#105 Feb 2, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I keep telling you, BAN is not the right word. ELIMINATE, DESTROY, GET RID OF, GONE. Under my plan there won't be any semis for the psychos to get.
Try to understand, the only new gun laws I advocate would be to make illegal the manufacture, sale or possession, in the US, of any type of semi auto rifle. Under this law would be the confiscation and destruction of any semi auto rifle found in the US. I repeat ALL semi auto rifles would be DESTROYED. Like the dinosaurs, there would be NONE around. Can you understand? There won't be any for the psychos to get.
I know it's a fantasy that won't come true, primarily because of politics. But your notion of identifying and stopping a psycho from getting an AR and committing mass murder is beyond fantasy; it's ridiculous.
So now I'm ridiculous? You are fixated on the wrong answer and you call me ridiculous? Well, my friend, time will prove I'm right, especially if the "elimination" is enacted. When you've "eliminated" law abiding owners of these weapons, those who ignore the law will still have access to them illegally........just as they have illegal access to them now.

"But your notion of identifying and stopping a psycho from getting an AR and committing mass murder is beyond fantasy; it's ridiculous."
The idea is to identify psychos and stop them from using ANYTHING to commit mass murder. If we don't do this..........we've done NOTHING to stop the violence and killing.

How about our first mass shooter to really make the news, Charles Whitman? He used a bolt action hunting rifle to do most of his killing. Timothy McVeigh used home-made explosives. George Hennard used two hand guns in Killeen TX. Jiverly Antares Wong (aka Jiverly Voong) used two hand guns in Binghampton, NY. Howard Barton Unruh used a hand gun in Camden NJ. James Eagan Holmes "asult weapon jammed on him so he used a hand gun and a shotgun as well as explosive tear gas grenades in Colorado. Gian Luigi Ferri used three hand guns in SF,CA. Carl Robert Brown used a shotgun in Miami, FLA. Larry Gene Ashbrook used two hand guns in Fort Worth, TX. Roland J. Smith Jr. used a firearm but killed many of his victims with arson in NY. Colin Ferguson used a hand gun in the NY subway.

Starting to see the picture here? I could go on and move back in history to show you some that didn't involve guns at all but the point is; the whack jobs WILL NOT be deterred by the absence of any particular tool. They will find a means to achieve their purpose. The only way to ensure the safety of innocent unsuspecting people is to identify and eliminate the psychos walking among us.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#106 Feb 2, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>
The idea is to identify psychos and stop them from using ANYTHING to commit mass murder. If we don't do this..........we've done NOTHING to stop the violence and killing.
Now you' really are getting ridiculous and talking like a spoiled, pouty child. None the less, I'll play your ridiculous game.

Let's assume we have identified, with 100% certainty, some adult psychopath who will commit a mass murder sometime in the future. But as yet, he is a law abiding citizen. First of all, how did we ID this person? Do we test everyone? Random selection? Wait tell they go to a psychiatrist? How often?(If you'll recall, Chessman had a brain tumor. He wasn't born a psycho.)
But, suppose they do get identified to the authorities. What authorities? Local police? FBI? ATF? Some special agency? Oh well, some authority is made aware of this individual. Now what?
Do we force them into treatment? What if they decline? Do we incarcerate them? They haven't done anything yet remember.
But let's say we overcome that little obstetrical and put them in treatment??? We can't let them back on the street, so they would have to be incarcerated till cured. If they can be cured. Who pays for this? The tax payer? Insurance? The individual? Oh well, that can be worked out I'm sure.

Maybe your right and your idea isn't so ridiculous, after all.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#107 Feb 2, 2013
Oops! I said Chessman but I meant Whitman.
xando

United States

#108 Feb 2, 2013
Neither scenario is realistic; however, ridding the world of specific weapons is much easier than controlling the psyches of individuals.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#109 Feb 2, 2013
xando wrote:
Neither scenario is realistic; however, ridding the world of specific weapons is much easier than controlling the psyches of individuals.
Too bad ridding the world of specific weapons won't do anything to stop the violence. You are correct, it's much easier than confronting the real problem.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#110 Feb 2, 2013
xando wrote:
Neither scenario is realistic; however, ridding the world of specific weapons is much easier than controlling the psyches of individuals.
You're right on both accounts. While we can never rid the US of semi rifles, we can make it a lot more difficult for an impulse driven psycho to get his hands on one. But, for certain there are just too many obstacles to overcome to identify, stop and cure some psycho BEFORE he commits a mass murder. But we do need to recognize that eliminating semi rifles is not a panacea that will stop all some crazies from perpetrating a mass murder. Also we need to recognize that allowing Mr/Mrs Law Abiding Citizens access has never and probably will never stop a psycho from a mass killing.
But another advantage of eliminating all semis is to get them off the streets. Mass killings with these weapons by nut jobs is a horrible thing for sure, but so are the individual cases that occur everyday in the US. Again, we will probably never eliminate gun violence, but the more difficult we make access to weapons, the better our chances are of at least reducing the violence.

“Polymath”

Since: Jul 08

Farmington

#111 Feb 3, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry but you're barking up the wrong tree. It doesn't matter what you ban, you will only be affecting those who obey the law and they are not the problem..
That's what people said about drunk driving laws...

People used to drink and drive. When there were just a few thousand cars in the entire country, that wasn't much of a problem, but when millions of drunk drivers hit the road the number of deaths became unacceptable. There were those who screeched "It's my god given right to drunk drive!" but they were overridden by the vast majority. It took time... but we changed.

When the constitution was written the few thousand Americans running around with muskets wasn't much of a problem, now that there are three hundred million Americans running around with guns, the number of deaths has become unacceptable. There are still those who screech, "It's my God given right to shoot a gun!" But they too, will be overridden and we will change.

Times change and with them, so do attitudes. Deal with it.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#112 Feb 3, 2013
Saint_ wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what people said about drunk driving laws...
People used to drink and drive. When there were just a few thousand cars in the entire country, that wasn't much of a problem, but when millions of drunk drivers hit the road the number of deaths became unacceptable. There were those who screeched "It's my god given right to drunk drive!" but they were overridden by the vast majority. It took time... but we changed.
When the constitution was written the few thousand Americans running around with muskets wasn't much of a problem, now that there are three hundred million Americans running around with guns, the number of deaths has become unacceptable. There are still those who screech, "It's my God given right to shoot a gun!" But they too, will be overridden and we will change.
Times change and with them, so do attitudes. Deal with it.
Driving is a privilege, the 2nd amendment is a right guaranteed by the constitution and the bill of rights. Big difference. Deal with it.

You compare apples and oranges.

I haven't heard of any initiatives to ban beer trucks. They do have high capacity magazines and will intoxicate more drivers much more quickly than a six pack or a case of beers.

The other key difference you neglect to mention is; if I don't drink and drive.....I am completely unpenalized/unrestricted by the drunk driving laws. No one has a right to drink and drive. While on the other hand we do have a right to keep and bear arms and I will be penalized and restricted by the gun ban even though I have committed no crime.
xando

United States

#113 Feb 3, 2013
Are you sure driving is not a right?

The US Supreme Court ruled the RIGHT to travel is a part of the lberty of which the CITIZEN CANNOT be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.

......a lot of ramifications to that which correlate to the firearms issue.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#114 Feb 3, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Driving is a privilege, the 2nd amendment is a right guaranteed by the constitution and the bill of rights. Big difference. Deal with it.
Wow! Settle down there, Squach. No since pissin' your pants over this little discussion. Saint was only trying to point out that that the attitude of the people change and along with that, laws are passed. H sees a day when that will happen with gun control. Who knows, maybe it will. But for right now, no new legislation will be passed. Your right to "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
BTW, your avatar states you are a “HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”. Just what does one do as a “HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”?
factologist

Farmington, NM

#115 Feb 3, 2013
xando wrote:
Are you sure driving is not a right?
The US Supreme Court ruled the RIGHT to travel is a part of the lberty of which the CITIZEN CANNOT be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.
......a lot of ramifications to that which correlate to the firearms issue.
Yes, many consider driving an "unalienable right".
Did you know we had an estimated 15 million crashes in 2011 resulting in about 30,000 fatalities? Overwhelmingly, this carnage was caused by vehicle operators.

“Polymath”

Since: Jul 08

Farmington

#116 Feb 3, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Driving is a privilege, the 2nd amendment is a right guaranteed by the constitution and the bill of rights.
It's an amendment. They can be repealed. Just like we repealed Prohibition when it didn't work.

Also, I said "drunk driving" don't try to change the subject. Drunk driving is not a privilege. It is deadly... as is gun ownership.
You compare apples and oranges.
I haven't heard of any initiatives to ban beer trucks. They do have high capacity magazines and will intoxicate more drivers much more quickly than a six pack or a case of beers.
You know anybody that's drank up a whole beer truck? Talk about apples and oranges.
The other key difference you neglect to mention is; if I don't drink and drive.....I am completely unpenalized/unrestricted by the drunk driving laws.
Wrong. You could still be killed by another drunk driver. Just as you could be shot by a crazed gunman.

I will be penalized and restricted by the gun ban even though I have committed no crime.
That's just what people said when the drunk driving laws came along. Verbatim.

A safer America is not a penalty. It's the future.

I really don't have to win this argument, time will win it for me.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#117 Feb 3, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Wow! Settle down there, Squach. No since pissin' your pants over this little discussion. Saint was only trying to point out that that the attitude of the people change and along with that, laws are passed. H sees a day when that will happen with gun control. Who knows, maybe it will. But for right now, no new legislation will be passed. Your right to "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
BTW, your avatar states you are a “HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”. Just what does one do as a “HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”?
There is a movement in the animal rights community to ban hunting. As a result of this many states are including a "right to hunt and fish" amendment to their state constitutions as a means of protecting our outdoor heritage. I advocate that same amendment to the constitution of my home state, which has not done so yet.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#118 Feb 3, 2013
Saint_ wrote:
<quoted text>
It's an amendment. They can be repealed. Just like we repealed Prohibition when it didn't work.
Also, I said "drunk driving" don't try to change the subject. Drunk driving is not a privilege. It is deadly... as is gun ownership.
<quoted text>
You know anybody that's drank up a whole beer truck? Talk about apples and oranges.
<quoted text>
Wrong. You could still be killed by another drunk driver. Just as you could be shot by a crazed gunman.
<quoted text>
That's just what people said when the drunk driving laws came along. Verbatim.
A safer America is not a penalty. It's the future.
I really don't have to win this argument, time will win it for me.
I doubt it.

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.”We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012):“The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear..........

We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets)

This letter defending military assault style weapons has over 1100 signatures.

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/sh...
factologist

Farmington, NM

#119 Feb 4, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>There is a movement in the animal rights community to ban hunting. As a result of this many states are including a "right to hunt and fish" amendment to their state constitutions as a means of protecting our outdoor heritage. I advocate that same amendment to the constitution of my home state, which has not done so yet.
Yes, I know all that. I think every state has legislation that protects it's game animals/aquatics as well as and hunters and fisherman. But what do YOU do as an advocate? Are you a lawyer or lobbyists?
factologist

Farmington, NM

#120 Feb 4, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt it.
Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.”We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012):“The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear..........
We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets)
This letter defending military assault style weapons has over 1100 signatures.
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/sh...
This is the silliest crap that I have read in a long, long time.
So let's do this; keep you military style assault weapons and let's outlaw all the rest.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#121 Feb 4, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I know all that. I think every state has legislation that protects it's game animals/aquatics as well as and hunters and fisherman. But what do YOU do as an advocate? Are you a lawyer or lobbyists?
No, I volunteer to work on making people aware of the need, getting signatures to help put it on the ballot, and generally help in whatever capacity I am able to. Pretty much the same kind of stuff you would do if you volunteered to help the campaign of your favorite candidate.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#122 Feb 4, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>No, I volunteer to work on making people aware of the need, getting signatures to help put it on the ballot, and generally help in whatever capacity I am able to. Pretty much the same kind of stuff you would do if you volunteered to help the campaign of your favorite candidate.
Oh, I see. Well that's good thing to be involved in. I wish the name were different. What you do is as much "animal rights" as anything. Plus, hunting and fishing is one of the best sports around. IMO. Outdoors, lots of good paraphernalia to buy, you can eat it- well some of it anyway and you do a good service to the land as well as the fish and game. Thank you for volunteering your time.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Farmington Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Anti-Bush bus rolls into Farmington; Republican... (Aug '08) 34 min Servers 69
Martinez prefers to stick to issues (Jun '10) 6 hr Bolgios 6,184
Kirtland Incorporation - Something Smells and i... 7 hr JSmith 4
Farmington commission: Restaurant did not discr... (Sep '10) Dec 23 AnnsResturantSucks 193
Allen Theaters drops screenings of 'The Intervi... Dec 23 MuricanHero 2
Barack Obama COUNTDOWN Clock 1000 days left & c... (Apr '14) Dec 22 Servers 286
FPD Lt popped for unlawful hunting' Dec 20 ODUSMC 4
Farmington Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Farmington People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Farmington News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Farmington

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:56 pm PST

NBC Sports 4:56PM
Broncos defeat Raiders, clinch first-round bye
ESPN 5:03 PM
Broncos stomp Raiders, clinch 1st-round bye
Yahoo! Sports 5:03 PM
Broncos cruise, earn AFC's No. 2 seed
NFL 5:09 PM
San Francisco 49ers send Jim Harbaugh off in style
NBC Sports 5:19 PM
Jim Harbaugh to Michigan looking more and more like a formality