facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

The slippery slope of gun control



Published: Thu, February 7, 2013 @ 12:00 a.m.

The slippery slope of gun control

Gun control is not about guns. It is about control. The Second Amendment states its purpose to defend the citizenry against a tyrannical government. The fact that this administration wants to take our guns seems self-incriminating. Without the Second Amendment, freedoms in other amendments are meaningless. The use of fear to allow wrongful governance has already eroded personal freedoms.

In many cases, guns save lives. There are approximately 8 million active concealed carry permits, and up to 55 million homes with a firearm. The vast majority is responsible and law abiding. Control of ownership will not make citizens safer and will empower criminals. Gun free zones assure criminals that their actions will be unchallenged. I would rather shop in the store that deters criminals.

The ban on large capacity magazines and assault rifles sounds like a good argument. But what is assault? Any rifle can be used for assault, as can a bomb or a Buick into a crowd. Let’s focus on laws against criminal behavior, not objects. Limiting magazine capacity is like New York City’s law prohibiting sugary drinks over 16 ounces. You can always buy another drink, and you can always reload or carry two guns. We should be more concerned about what will surely be banned after assault rifles, magazines and soda pop.

Having armed guards in our schools is disturbing. Do we want that culture for our children? It would be expensive and ineffective. Selecting who can carry in the workplace creates another dilemma. If only the airline pilot, teacher or minister can carry, those individuals will be targeted first. The good news is we don’t have to do anything to be safer. We just need to stop legislators from restricting rights we already have. Those trained to carry, can do the most to protect themselves, their students and their families. The police cannot protect everybody.

Ann Davis, Youngstown

Marching to a fearful beat

Hup! Two! Three! Four! The Tin Soldiers of the NRA are marching.

A recent letter-writer from Boardman will be the first in the long line of cacophonic diatribe written about taking away citizen rights and taking guns away.

A NRA sympathizer who needs an automatic weapon to shoot a duck, a goose, or a partridge in a pear tree needs to take up knitting instead of hunting.

The Supreme Court completely ignored the first half of the Second Amendment. The Militia mentioned in the Constitution is today the Army Reserve, and the two Air Guards. It does not include the NRA members who call themselves a militia. Perhaps if such militias were rounded up by Seal Team 6 and sent to Afghanistan, the Supreme Court would rule differently on the matter.

Responsible gun owners, unlike NRA fanatics, do not fear regulation of guns.

John Zordich, Youngstown


Comments

1redeye1(4699 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

John,, You are such a moron to believe that OBAMMY is going to stop at just taking some guns. It's his way to get started and to take all guns. By the way I stated earlier that you are a moron. Not everyone can get automatic weapons without a permit from the Federal Gov't. Yes, i own SEMI-automatic weapons. Why? you might ask, its because homeland security says that they are the best weapon against home invasions Secondly my wife can handle it because its very lite.. If you don't like it , just move to Chicago , that's gun free city.

Suggest removal:

2kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

"A NRA sympathizer who needs an automatic weapon to shoot a duck, a goose, or a partridge in a pear tree needs to take up knitting instead of hunting."
That statement alone would prove you know NOTHING about the Constitution, let alone the Second Amendment. But then there's more like- "The Supreme Court completely ignored the first half of the Second Amendment. The Militia mentioned in the Constitution is today the Army Reserve, and the two Air Guards"

You are so wrong on so many levels. First off, NO ONE can have an "automatic" weapon manufactured after 1986 and then must pass all kind of background checks, have prints on file and pay $200.00 for a stamp. A true legal automatic weapon will cost you about $15000.00 and up.
Second, I don't care what anyone uses to hunt ducks but hunting is not even remotely what the Second Amendment is about.
That brings us to the third point...The SCOTUS was correct to ignore ruling on the first half of 2A. And you were half right :). The militia is the military but 2A is not saying the military should have guns...they SPECIFICALLY state "...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The founders had just finished fighting the king's militia and understanding that to keep a state (country) free and secure that a militia (military) might be necessary from time to time to fight off enemies and that a tyrannical gubmint might use that militia against it's own subjects (like the king did). So to prevent a king or the gubmint taking away the other or even that particular RIGHT they wrote the Second Amendment.
Why are you so afraid of law abiding citizens owning the weapons of their choice? Why do you want only criminals to have weapons of their choice? BTW, I really don't care about the NRA and have never been a member. I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and they never unswore me.
If you still don't understand the Second Amendment you should go to the popular "tube" site that shows videos and do a search for 'Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment'. Watch it all, even after it cuts off her testimony in front of Congress. Then if you still don't understand it and continue to spout off about things you know nothing about maybe we can work on laws that would "infringe" on your First Amendment right...fair enough?

Suggest removal:

3HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

I don't have any personal knowledge of the time spent at actual live-fire competency, but from what my CCW friends have told me it was 6 hours. (there may have been law changes since).
What I was particularily struck by were the requirements for identification, not just driver's license but previous addresses and fingerprints. Then the permit is approved (and background checked) with the applicant actually appearing before law enforcement officer. A non-law-abiding person is probably not going to try to walk into the Sheriff's office to get one.

Subsequently when the CCW holder purchases a weapon, the dealer does not do a background check.

Whether a CCW permittee actually carries, concealed or not, is his choice.

The fee (in 2007) in Florida for this is 5 dollars!

Suggest removal:

4HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

While Seriously may prefer that gun sales are regulated this way, and I happen to agree, the gun lobby and those that believe that there should be no restrictions would fight to the death to prevent this.
Too much to ask a purchaser of a several hundred dollar gun to go out of his way !

Suggest removal:

5VINDYAK(1799 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

There are so many people who do not understand our Constitution and the Bill of Rights and how important they are to us. These documents were written as PERSONAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS, not of states or governments. So, when you begin to dissect and carve up our Constitution, you are giving up your INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. This allows our government to hold more control over citizens, rather than controlling the criminals, because criminals do not follow laws anyway.

If our Second Amendment is destroyed, then the loss of other Amendments could follow. Two other Amendments in danger are the freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Think about it. Infringements are everywhere. Both those rights are being challenged daily by our government and by subversive organizations who have nothing better to do with all their millions of donations than to destroy our nation as we know it and turn it into a socialistic state.

We must be diligent in our efforts to protect all of our civil rights, not just for ourselves, but for everyone. That is why we are in this fight to the very end. We will not give in or give up. This is too important.

Suggest removal:

6palmer16121(116 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

This is too complex of an issue to have just one or afew silver-bullet style soutions. Though, for those of you who are gung-ho about guns...why are you not fighting to enforce the laws already on the books, to cut down on the gun violence. I'm not calling for any Chicago-style bans...I sure as hell am not willing to have things go to Somalia-level either.

Suggest removal:

7DwightK(1300 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

For goodness sake, no one is trying to end the second amendment. Where does this nonsense come from?

Suggest removal:

8HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

Hman, Actually the dealer is NOT required to NICS check if the transfer qualifies for any of the exceptions in 27 CFR 478.102(d). Those exceptions include where the buyer has presented a permit to possess, acquire or carry a firearm that is recognized by the ATF as a valid alternative to NICS check requirement,

See page 6 of ATF form 4473, also items 22 and 23 on page 2.

Item 23 has the dealer enter the state issued permit number and date.

No NICS check required with Ohio CCW. A dealer may do the NICS check, but it is his option.

Suggest removal:

9HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

Hey Dwight,
I agree with you, the talk of destruction and or ending the second amendment is nonsense.

See the Ann's original letter; see Vindyak's post #6 above. All are trying to make the case that the second amendment is under attack.

The discussion of high capacity magazines is not pertinent to the second amendment. The discussion on so-called assault weapons or semi-automatic weapons is not pertinent to the second amendment.

What is pertinent to the second amendment is the right of any person to obtain and possess a firearm. That seems to be (on the surface) the "right" that people are talking about. Plainly there are those who feel that IF the Federal government is permitted to restrict the right for "the people" to arm themselves they (the Federal Government) will have emasculated the Second Amendment. And as clearly as day follows night, the Federal Government will "destroy or end" the other amendments.

Suggest removal:

10jojuggie(1478 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

IF GUNS KILL PEOPLE
-------------------------------------

Then pencils mispell words.
Cars make people drive drunk. &
Spoons make Rosie O'Donnel fat.

Suggest removal:

11kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

I know you addressed Vindy but here's my take on your statements:
-----"Could you name one proposal that would destroy the 2nd admendent It has aready been proven that some of the restrictions won't destroy it,"------

(emphasis on the word "restrict" is mine to make sure you see it)
in·fringe /ɪnˈfrɪnʤ/ verb
in·fring·es; in·fringed; in·fring·ing
2 : to wrongly limit or -->RESTRICT<-- (something, such as another person's rights) [+ obj] ▪ Her rights must not be infringed. [no obj] — + on or upon ▪ He argues that the proposed law infringes upon our guaranteed right of free speech.
— in·fring·er noun, plural in·fring·ers

(pointed out the word infringed for ya)
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be -->INFRINGED<--.

ANY "restriction" on 2A destroys and violates the intent of "shall NOT be INFRINGED".

-----"The former assualt weapon ban proved that."----
The former so-called "assault weapon ban" was a temporary law with an expiration date that proved NOTHING. The number of murders using these so-called "assault weapons" is miniscule, Take away the scary looking pistol grip, the scary flash suppressor, the scary hand-guards and the scary collapsible stock and you know what ya got?? A damn rifle that can kill somebody or a lot of somebodies same as any other rifle or pistol or revolver. It happens to look just like a real "assault weapon" (M16) so people want to be more scared of what something looks like while a .380, or .45 will leave a MUCH larger hole. They all do the same thing. Whether an AR15, semi-auto .380, or a .45 revolver you get one bullet for each pull of the trigger. Anything more than that is considered a machine gun. To own a machine gun you need about $15000.00+, a $200 stamp from the ATF, and extensive background check. There have been NO mass shootings that I know of in the past 20 years committed with machine guns or real "assault weapons". In fact, the ONLY time I know of was the 2 guys in CA that robbed the bank and had the shootout with police. At that time police in CA could not legally have real "assault weapons" so they changed the law. this incident may (not 100% sure) have been the impetus for the "assault weapon" ban which failed miserably at preventing any killings or mass murders.

Suggest removal:

12kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

----"Why would a law abiding citizens be concerned about abackground ck???"-----

I used to pretty much agree with that but then I recently REALLY thought about it and it fails miserably. First, it does violate 2A. I'm sure a statistic (real or made up) can be found about how many people get turned down on the background check. The criminals who want a gun will just go get one (a little north of Midlothian). Many who fail the background check probably had something in their past and have since changed their behavior and would never kill a person (except in defense) let alone commit a mass murder. And there are those that pass and still kill and commit mass murder (ex-cop in CA and Aurora shooter). The b.c. is useless as teats on a boar hog. So why bother infringing other than to irritate?

Suggest removal:

13KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

Why bother with speed limit laws, "we know" that some people will not obey?

Suggest removal:

14kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

ksu- there is nothing in the Bill of Rights about motor vehicles or speed limits...apples to spinach.
To learn exactly what the 2A means search for "Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment" on the popular "tube" site that shows all the videos...watch the whole thing, even after it quits showing her in front of congress.
seriously- the collapsible stock I was speaking of is simply adjustable for comfort (if you thought that was the same thing). I'm sure the slide stock evolved from "bump firing". It has been approved by the ATF, approved by 2A...and I'm sure it will be banned by certain states who think only criminals should have them. I don't have any personal experience with this device but from my understanding (from a more knowledgeable source) in a firefight or a war zone this would be useless. If you are standing in one spot aiming at one target it is fairly easy to empty a mag or a clip. So a mass murderer would pretty much need people to line up and voluntarily walk past his line of fire. These guys developed and sell this device and make it look easier than it really is (lots of practice). So you can make an AR15 sound like a machine gun but NOT act like one. I would not want one. If I want something that will spit a lot of money out the end of a barrel I would go the expense of a legit machine gun and jump through the hoops.

Suggest removal:

15kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED"
O.K. I'll give ya that technically the stock is not the "arm" so whether 2A covers the stock or not is not a debate I'd wish to waste time on. But according to them the ATF says no problem. One pull of the trigger=one bullet. 2A does not FORBID it...is that better?
I watched the entire video. As I stated, I am not real familiar with the device but from what I read it has been out for a couple years. If a sane person could shoot up a movie theater, I would say (as a sane person) it would not be my weapon of choice. That's not to say someone else and especially those who are mentally off would not prefer it. I suppose if it's as good and easy as they say it is, that it would maybe be good for home defense since thugs often travel in pairs or even gangs to do their deeds. It's gonna really mess up the drapes though.

Suggest removal:

16HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

Regardless of it's legality, I will still stand by my statement that the weapon depicted in the first 10 seconds of this video would be a weapon of choice for a person intent on a mass slaughter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U6tOR...

Suggest removal:

17kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

so happybob=seriouslynow....how many other names you use? I guess that would explain your agreement with seriously above...good idea though, it makes it look like more people agree with you and that your points might be legit.

Suggest removal:

18HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

No secret. I use two different computers depending on where I happen to be at the time. Neither computer allows me to change the user ID to comment. No intent to decieve.

Getting back to the issue, the slide stock video is frightening particularly if you put it in the hands of wantabe mass murderer. I suspect that more than two people will agree with that image.

Prior to seeing that advertisement I was ambivalent on the so-called assault weapons and a proposals for a ban. Now I'm leaning more towards thinking it's a good thing to ban weapons like the one shown from general public circulation.
It's not the looks of the weapon that's frightening, it is the functionality and easy application to mass murder.

Would it be fun to shoot? Yes, I would expect it to be very exciting. Would I like to see it available to folks at the range? Yes I think that would be OK. But do I think that a weapon like that should be readily available to anyone, without reservation (some sort of background check)? Absolutely not.

Said another way, I would think that weapons like this would be OK, provided that the weapon is in the hands of a qualified person.

If you agree, then the thing that we are wrangling over is how to determine who is qualified.

If you don't agree, and hold that ANYONE should have access to weapons with this functionality - well your entitled to your opinion.

Suggest removal:

19kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

NO intent to deceive but yet you go ahead and "agree" with yourself in a following post? o.k. ;)
With all the nuts in this country, I would love if only those qualified and sane could have any of these weapons, or any weapon at all. Banning does not work (PROVEN read the news headlines), background checks do not really work (PROVEN read the news headlines), the only thing that will work without infringing on the second amendment is to get rid of stupid criminal protection zones and allow law abiding people to arm themselves. Not everyone has to carry but if it is in the perps mind that someone might be carrying, they will most likely go elsewhere (like the Aurora shooter did ). My problem with any restriction or infringement is as the title says "The slippery slope...". Ban so called "assault rifles" today, ... well, that didn't work, .... then ban semi-auto, ... well, that didn't work, ... ban revolvers ... ...on and on until nothing is allowed. Since the criminals will get or make whatever they want (including bombs) the only solution I see is to let people arm themselves if they wish and get rid of the stupid criminal protection zones (since only criminals may be armed there). I think it would be a good move because an armed society is a polite society..don't know who first said that but it makes sense (if I think you might possibly be armed you know I ain't gonna bad mouth your momma). 20000+ gun laws on the books. There is already too much expense and hoops to own a gun and have it available and the criminals don't care about any of those laws. Education would also be a good thing. Around 7th or 8th grade every student should have a gun safety course (mandatory as a minimum) and preferably training on using and when to use guns (optional for those who wish to participate). Of course, first we have to figure out what is wrong with these kids that want to take guns to school and settle differences, whether it be culture or the meds, I don't know. I'm not bigtime against what we have right now but the more they talk about expanding that the more I have to object to any. Maybe they should just address the REAL problem, crazy, looney or whatever people.

Suggest removal:

20HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

@kk80586,
Ok, I get it that you don't think bans will work.
But you do say that "the only thing that will work without infringing on the second amendment is to get rid of stupid criminal protection zones."

How would you propose to "get rid of these zones"?

Would you agree that, as a property owner, I have some right to create a gun free property on property that I own?. As a business owner do I have some right to say that I don't want guns in my establishment?

I understand that the BFA is promoting an economic campaign against business owners who don't want guns in their establishments. I don't think those economic sanctions will work very well at your local hospitals, or your doctor's office. But that's just my opinion.

What I think would be an invasive governmental regulation is to ban the ability of business owners and property owners to create gun free zones, if they choose.

Would you propose that the penalty (for ignoring a ban) be criminal or civil?

It just seems to me that you are proposing that the gun carry has more rights than the owner/operator.

Suggest removal:

21kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

I'll (partially) concede that point (owner can do what they want) to you BUT from my experience most of these business owners don't even know exactly why they have the sign. ( when I say most I mean 2 out of the 2 I've talked to). The first was a lumber/hardware store owner. He said that when OH started CCW that people came around and said "it's going to be like the wild west..shootouts everywhere, the sky will fall!". He put it in the window and basically forgot about it. We talked awhile... he was a hunter and had several guns and quickly realized the irrationality of forbidding law abiding people from carrying. The next time I went there the sign was gone.
The second one was even easier. It is a charitable org. and I know the founder personally. I asked why the sign was there and she said "I don't know, I thought it was required" and had no idea who put it there. She told me to get rid of it. So I threw it in my truck (it was a nice metal one) since she and I were going shooting that afternoon. It made a nice target :)
"Gun Free Zone"..sounds safe don't it? If it worked at all, I would be 100% for it. But it has been proven time and time again that it not only does not work but actually attracts those that with bad intent. It forbids innocent people from defending themselves.

Suggest removal:

22kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

The 2nd is only one sentence. The first half says that since the gubmint must have a military and might use it against the subjects (people)....then there is a comma, then the second half of the sentence says that because of the first half of the sentence that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". For a really good explanation search for " Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment" on youtube. watch the whole thing even after her testimony in front of congress. Very enlightening.

Suggest removal:

23HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

Hey kk,
I do think that owners/operators should be able to self-determine. But I'm also open to suggestions.

How about this, rather than trying to convince owners to not forbid firearms, encourage those same owners to put CCW only signs.

Except for those specific places that are covered by law now, there is no reason why an owner/operator can not "conspiciously" place a sign the essentially says;

" CCW IS ENCOURAGED IN THIS ESTABLISHMENT"

Suggest removal:

24HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

KK, I asked my doctor today why he had a no guns sign. He told me that he personally is an NRA member and has no problem with weapons in his office.

Howver he reported that a number of patients had complained about being very uncomfortable with another patient in the waiting room who was carrying. After this had happened several times, he decided that it might be best just to ask (via the sign) persons who carry to not bring them into the office/waiting area.

Tongue in cheek he also added that he has never had any gun violence problems at the office, with our without signs.

So there are lots of reasons to permit or not, for private property maybe the best solution is to let the owner make the decision he feels best suits the situation.

Suggest removal:

25kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

I'd bet my last dollar that there would NEVER be a robbery or mass murder at THAT place :)
That would be a good idea (and I'm sure somewhere, somebody has done that). I don't get out much so I don't know a lot of the places that do or do not have cpz's. When I first got interested in c.c. I found a site (might have been at ohioansforconcealedcarry?) that you could list businesses that catered to criminals. They also had a form letter that you could give to the business owner which essentially spelled out the folly of thinking that banning c.c was a good thing. I'm sure it's somewhere in my vast list of bookmarks. If I come across it I will post it but you might try a search in the meantime. I tried a quick search but none of the ones I saw were what I was exactly thinking of.

Suggest removal:

26kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

Was the guy open carrying? If he was supposed to be concealed carrying no one should have known. That's the beauty of concealed carry. Nobody has to!! As long as concealed carry is legal and there is no criminal protection zone sign, the criminal has no way of knowing for sure...why take a chance when he can go down the street where there is a cpz sign and do as he pleases without possible interference.

Suggest removal:

27HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

kk, Commenting on your post # 31.
The form letter that you referred to is what I suggesting had it backwards. Instead of trying to convince the business owner why it's bad to BAN concealed carry, show them why it's GOOD to encourage concealed carry at their business place. Ultimately isn't that the point that you've been trying to make, that concealed carry makes a place of business safer.

Comment on post #33: The doctor didn't tell me if the patient was open carry or not. Perhaps I've misunderstood, I thought that a CCW permittee was not required to conceal but could conceal.

In any event, I don't know the answer to your question. All I can report is what the doc said. Bottom line for him was that if allowing weapons in the waiting room made other patients uncomfortable enough to complain, then he was going to make his waiting room as comfortable as possible. If that means asking people not to bring firearms into his business then he'd post "NO GUNS". - Which he did.

As the McWeather video and article suggested, another patient my have just seen a butt of a gun under a jacket. - I just don't know the circumstances cause the doc just focused on his actions to satisfy his patients.

Suggest removal:

28UsuallyBlunt(105 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

The country is waiting for the first lawsuits over injuries or deaths occurring during the commission of crimes at C.P.Z. sign posted private properties! It can be assumed that, if you forbid someone the right of self protection on YOUR property that you are therefore responsible for THEIR protection while on it! This will be interesting!

Suggest removal:

29Sensible(118 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

Mr Blunt,
That's a pretty big assumption, that the property owner assumes liability for the actions of a trespasser.
Property owner have been posting their property for years - maybe a hundred years. How long do you plan to wait for a successful lawsuit?
The CPZ liability threat is just another fear mongering tactic.

Suggest removal:

30kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

sensible--that does not make sense...blunt never mentioned a trespasser. I would imagine that it would be difficult to win a lawsuit over cpz's in most cases due to the fact that you could choose to not patronize the establishment that protects only criminals. Business owners just need to be better educated to the fact that it is better to have armed law abiding citizens in their stores than to have armed criminals.

A gun is like a parachute...if you ever need one and don't have one, you will probably never need one again.

Suggest removal:

31AnotherAverageCitizen(1175 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

KK Post 15 "The criminals who want a gun will just go get one (a little north of Midlothian). Many who fail the background check probably had something in their past and have since changed their behavior and would never kill a person""

According to the 2nd Amendment there criminal should still be allowed his weapon. We should not have a background check, because all CRIMINALs HAVE A RIGHT TO BARE ARMS. I think anybody protecting criminals should really be ashamed of themselves.

If you defend the 2nd Amendment, you are APPROVING all criminals the right to bare arms.

Suggest removal:

32kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

aac- you are ridiculous. Defending the 2A is NOT approving criminals to bear arms. Criminals will get guns one way or the other. They don't care about 2A, background checks, gun bans, etc. By infringing on 2A, YOU are saying that ONLY criminals should have the right to bear arms without a cumbersome, jump through the hoops process (as they will get them on the black market). Background checks are worthless. Look at the ex-cop in L.A. He likely had a MINIMUM of 2 background checks...one to join lapd, the other when he joined the navy. And those would be the full background check that the yawhoos are all clamoring for, not just criminal background checks like is currently done. How did that work out?
In case I wasn't clear enough for you, or you didn't comprehend what I was saying in post #15-- I would NOT want a VIOLENT criminal to ever again have access to a gun (they should still be in jail), but someone who committed a non-violent crime 20 or 30 years ago may have turned over a new leaf and would be improperly prohibited from defending themselves.
"If you defend the 2nd Amendment, you are APPROVING all criminals the right to bare arms."
Let's see, when you go in the military you swear to protect and DEFEND the constitution. So you are telling me that all those who died in all the wars to protect our rights (including your right to come on here and make ridiculous accusations) were "APPROVING all criminals the right to bare arms." ??

Suggest removal:

33AnotherAverageCitizen(1175 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

The 2nd Amendment says "without Infingement"

By not letting ALL Citizens, law abiding and Criminals, the right to bare arms you are INFRINGING on ones right.

If you are going to DEFEND the 2nd Amendment, then defend it for ALL.

Thank you for helping me prove my point. The 2nd amendment is for ALL citizens not just ones who have not committed a crime yet. That is why some control is needed. Continue background checks as an ongoing process. Not just because someone passed a check 7 years ago.

Suggest removal:

34Sensible(118 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

@KK, Granted that Blunt never said trespasser, but by defination a person who enters a property without the consent of the owner is a trespasser.

Here's the picture that I think that Blunt's trying to lay out:

As a property owner I have posted signs that says that firearms are not permitted. Now, my friend comes to visit and we have a nice cup of tea on the veranda. About halfway through our second scone, a crazed gun man rushes onto my porch and shoots my friend, killing him and stealing the rest of the scones. Blunt seems to be suggesting that because my friend could not protect himself (because he complied with my wishes and did not bring along his Bushmaster), that I am liable for my friend's death.

Is that pretty much the Blunt's argument?

In this case the gunman is a trespasser is he not?

Unless I had prior knowledge of a clear and present danger, thereby purposefully putting my friend in mortal danger, there is no reasonable way that I could be found liable.

That's all I'm saying and I think that makes perfect sense.

Nice day!

Suggest removal:

35kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

aac-- your (il)logic astounds me. I don't have to defend 2A for criminals as they should lose ALL of their rights so I don't prove your point at all. I don't believe for a second that the Founding Fathers intended for criminals to have ANY rights (other than those specifically in the Constitution... i.e. right to a speedy trial). The difference between then and now is that people have lost COMMON SENSE (YOU prove my point).
I differentiate between those who commit a (non-violent) crime and career "criminals". NO!, criminals should not own guns.<---period They LOSE that right when they decide to be criminals. I don't want or have to defend their right for ANYTHING. There are plenty of countries that have laws and/or constitutions more to your liking. The United States is unique....that's a good thing. If you don't like it....make like Taco Bell. Otherwise, stay here, do what you want to do (as long as it does not affect me), and leave me alone to enjoy MY rights.
The ONLY reason you get to come on here and spew nonsense is because of 1A....maybe we need a law that infringes on that a little bit,eh? And technically we could because 2A is the ONLY Right that says (this Right)"shall not be infringed".

Suggest removal:

36kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

sense, I stand corrected on that point. I initially skimmed over blunt's post a little too fast so I missed an important distinction. Yes, the gunman is a trespasser.
I will differ with you on this point, "Unless I had prior knowledge of a clear and present danger, thereby purposefully putting my friend in mortal danger, there is no reasonable way that I could be found liable."
O.k., let's use your same scenario with you and your friend on the veranda. Same cpz. Same scones. By forbidding firearms to be carried by law abiding citizens ( I will assume your friend is not a criminal), you are leaving them helpless and defenseless against a possible "trespasser" who sees there is nothing to stop him(her) from doing whatever they want to do. I would not argue your "right" to protect criminals by posting a cpz sign and of course your friend could (and should) eat his scones elsewhere if he wishes to not be a victim. Having said that, I hope that eventually common sense will prevail and people will realize that cpz signs actually are an invitation to criminals/mass shooters. I expect concealed carriers to notice the presence (or not) of a cpz and act accordingly. However, a non-gun owner would have no reason to have to read the door before entering and may not even realize it's implication. It is especially on behalf of those people that I would hope a lawsuit might someday prevail...not that you had prior knowledge of c&p danger but because you advertised that all your patrons were defenseless so "come on in and enjoy" to the criminal/shooter.

Suggest removal:

37kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

serious---The president is not ALWAYS right, congress is NOT always right and scotus is not always right. Yes, we need to act within their laws no matter how unconstitutional or stupid (at least until we get fed up with it).
"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Actually, they violated the 10th in order to infringe on the 2nd. In other words, the 10th says the states may make laws that are not prohibited by the Constitution. The Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" so therefore the states may not infringe on that right either. And it has been proven time and time again that even with 20000+ laws (a lot of them "infringements") that it does no good at all.

Suggest removal:

38Sensible(118 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

KK, By posting my property I am exercising my lawful right to conduct affairs on my property as I see fit.
It is only your intrepretation that I am protecting criminals.

The rest of your comment is extrapolation and expectation.

Gun Free zones have existed for years and years. Wasn't Columbine a GFZ? If there was liability because of the GFZ, have there been any successful lawsuits in the last 14 years as a result.

The Luby massacre occurred 22 years ago, it was a GFZ. Any successful lawsuits against the management?

Can you find someone, somewhere in the NRA community or otherwise that can show an actual case of liability. (There are plenty of NRA members who are lawyers.)

I don't mean to be "in your face" over this, but the whole construct that your suggesting really seems to have no foundation IN ACTUAL TORT LAW!

So if you can back it up with an actual case --- I'm ready to listen.

So allow MY fantasy. I really doubt that the management at Chuckie Cheese will feel safer if 5 or 6 adults armed with shotguns and Bushmasters wander in off the street - people that the management doesn't know.
(yeah, I stole the Chuckie Cheese concept from another poster)

Suggest removal:

39kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

sense--I actually stated that you had the right to post as you please on your own property, did I not? How do you want me to interpret a cpz sign? Do you believe that criminals see that sign and say "uh-oh, I better go next door"? I see very few of these signs in my limited travels so explain why most of the mass shootings in the last 2 decades occurred in cpz's.
I never said (because I never looked into) if there have ever been any lawsuits successful or not over cpz's (talk about extrapolation and interpretation.....).
Have whatever fantasy you wish (as long as I'm not in it) but I'm sure the victims of chuckie cheese of Aurora, Co in 1993 would have preferred that some law abiding customers had wandered in with their "shotguns and Bushmasters".
"(yeah, I stole the Chuckie Cheese concept from another poster) " hmmm, sounds like you are setting up an alibi that you are not posting as 2 or more people (I actually know someone on here that does that). Would have been less suspicious if you had not added that since no one else mentioned chuckie on this thread...not accusing (as I have no evidence (yet))...jus sayin'.

Suggest removal:

40Sensible(118 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

KK- I thought that you were taking up Blunt's argument from his post above where he states: "if you forbid someone the right of self protection on YOUR property that you are therefore responsible for THEIR protection while on it!"

I am asking either you or Blunt to demonstrate that conclusion with some actual cases. As I said above, I'm not trying to "get up in your face", rather I'm asking you and Blunt if you have some actual facts that support the contention.
Actual lawsuits that have found an owner liable for damages because his property was posted and someone else (aka the criminal) was the actual perperatrator.
I really have tried to find some support (via google and gun websites) but can't find anything. Mass shooting in a gun free zone have a history of almost 25-30 years. So if owners could be successfully sued as Blunt contends, it surely would have happend at least once in the past 25 years.

Gun free zones (what you like to call criminal protection zones) exist all over. I'm not convinced that GFZs are a magnet for the criminal, but that's just my opinion.

I don't know anything about victims at Chuckie Cheese in Aurora Co in 1993 - I can't find any reference to an incident there.

What I was referring to in my last paragraph was Chuckie Cheese in Niles. Admittedly I have not asked the management there, but I'd guess that they would not automatically feel safer if several strangers walked in with weapons, concealed or not.

As to the last bit about trying to set up an alibi, you really are suspicious! Someone on another thread had mentioned Chuckie Cheese. I suppose as an example of where there are going to be large groups of children at play in a private business. I'm making an assumption that CC either is posted, or that the managment is likely to ask the person carrying to leave.

Suggest removal:

41kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

I certainly agree with blunt's statement that a cpz should provide adequate protection for it's patrons. Perhaps there have been no successful lawsuits (yet), that does not mean I can not agree with that position. I see there are good people working on making it easier to sue over cpz's. I'm not a big time lawsuit fan but leaving people defenseless is negligent at best.
You say cpz's "exist all over". A vast majority of mass shootings have taken place in cpz's. You don't see a possible pattern there?
google "chuck e cheese aurora colorado shootings" About 67,400 results (0.27 seconds)

Suggest removal:

42Sensible(118 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

KK,
Ok, I did find the Chuckie Cheese in Aurora - thanks for the clarification.

Your using the word "adequate" protection gives me a clue as to why you and I don't agree on the GFZ thing.

I absolutely agree that a business should provide adequate protection for it's patrons. However I would contend that "adequate" dictates that the business owner would need to take definative action. I'm not at all convinced that relegating that "responsibility to protect" to an unknown person with a gun, who may or may not be present would be considered adequate.

The lawsuits from the Aurora theater shooting are good examples.
From Buckeye Firearms assn website: Two lawsuits filed Friday against Cinemark USA Inc., owner of Century Aurora 16, allege negligence on the part of the corporation because the theater lacked adequate security or sufficient alarm systems.

I doubt that the court would find that allowing some unknow theater patrons to carry guns would be construed as adequate action taken by the management to provide security for all the patrons.

If you see there are people working on making it easier to sue over GFZ, can you tell me where? The only action I've seen thus far are attempts to boycott.

Suggest removal:

43AnotherAverageCitizen(1175 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

Columbine-- armed security

Foot Hood --- armed security

YSU -- armed security

By a place allowing a person to CCW in it will not contitute securing the other patrons. Just as disallowing CCW does not secure/unsecure other patrons any more or less.

If you do not feel secure without your weapon in certain places, simple " DO NOT GO THERE"

Suggest removal:

44Sensible(118 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

@AnotherAverage..
I agree with your statement about securing other patrons. The only thing I would add is that neither open carry nor concealed by another patron seems to provide any more or less security to the rest of the patrons. Firearms in the hands of unknown persons would certainly would not satisfy any legal requirement for a owner to provide a secure environment.

One could argue that a employee with a firearm openly displayed could act as a deterrent.

From the business owners perspective, I would not place my clients safety in the hands of someone (open or concealed carry) unknown to me.
From that same perspective, I sense that the majority of patrons are more comfortable without guns in their presence unless those arms are under the supervision of management.

Best advice is your last sentence!

Suggest removal:

45kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

sense-- you seem to be inferring that I consider a concealed carrier as "adequate security". NO. My point is that if you are going to advertise that all your patrons are unarmed then extra steps should be taken for their security (i.e. metal detectors, armed guard, etc). It is the advertising that no one will retaliate that makes these areas attractive to those who wish to rack up body counts.

Suggest removal:

46kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

aac-- if you are making the point that armed guards work, you are correct. At Columbine, there would have been many more deaths. "The "National School Safety Shield" program proposed by the National Rifle Association has been criticized by some who claim that an armed guard in a school is ineffective. They cite, as proof, the Columbine High School shooting of 1999, during which an armed guard was on campus. Their argument is that the armed guard failed to make a difference, as 12 students and one teacher were killed." "However, a timeline of the events assembled by the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department and published by CNN proves just the opposite. The armed guard, Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy Neil Gardner, was able to engage the killers, keeping them from shooting more victims, and he personally saved dozens of students."
At Fort Hood, "Base civilian police Sergeant Kimberly Munley, who had rushed to the scene in her patrol car, encountered Hasan in the area outside the Soldier Readiness Processing Center." Of course Sgt. Munley was hit and out of action but she delayed the terrorist long enough for civilian police Sgt. Mark Todd to put 5 in the sheep humper and end the shooting.
Sgt. Munley was the armed guard and more would have been killed without her there. Unfortunately, military policy disallows soldiers from carrying on base or there might have been a lot less deaths.
YSU might have armed guards but the incident I found that would be (or close to being) a mass shooting happened off-campus.
"By a place allowing a person to CCW in it will not contitute securing the other patrons. Just as disallowing CCW does not secure/unsecure other patrons any more or less."
Your first sentence is true if you mean in a legal sense. The second sentence is false as advertising that no one is armed makes everyone much less secure whether anyone is actually carrying or not.
"If you do not feel secure without your weapon in certain places, simple " DO NOT GO THERE" "
I've (basically) said that before and agree with that. However, a lot of people (because they do not carry) may be unaware of the implications of stepping into criminal protection zones.

Suggest removal:

47Sensible(118 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

I'm not trying to infer anything. I'm just trying to understand your logic.

#1, I hope that you and I agree that general business owners can lawfully create a Gun Free Zone (GFZ) by posting and they can also lawfully eject anyone they wish including gun bearers by verbal command.

#2, I hope that you and I can agree that General business owners have a legal responsibility to provide a reasonably safe environment for their patrons. Consciously failing to do so places the business owner in jeopardy for liability.

#3, Your position is that advertising a GFZ at a general business attracts persons who want to rack up a body count.

#4, Your position is that the consequence of #1 and #3 together is that an advertised GFZ places patrons in jeopardy.

#5, By being placed in a location of heightened jeopardy, patrons have a cause of action against the business owner for failing to provide adequate safeguards should the patron suffer a loss.

Would these be a fair representation of things that we can agree on?

Let's pretend were are in court, I would ask you to prove #3.

Alternatively can you cite any settled case law that accepts #3?

Can you state the insurance carriers are either increasing premiums or refusing to insure establishments because they have elected to do something that is completely lawful?

Can either case law be created or insurance companies convinced someday in the future? Maybe, but OFCC (Ohioans for Concealed Carry) has been actively on this campaign for at least the last ten years. They have not yet found a lawsuit that they can point to that is useful to prove the liability contention.

Suggest removal:

48kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

" I'm not at all convinced that relegating that "responsibility to protect" to an unknown person with a gun, who may or may not be present would be considered adequate."
"I doubt that the court would find that allowing some unknow theater patrons to carry guns would be construed as adequate action taken by the management to provide security for all the patrons. "
"From the business owners perspective, I would not place my clients safety in the hands of someone (open or concealed carry) unknown to me."
You were inferring that I consider a concealed carrier as "adequate security".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have NEVER stated that any cases were settled in favor of those harmed, directly or indirectly, by cpz's so you can quit asking me to provide proof of this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking at the list of mass shootings in the past 20 years and where they took place and which ones were cpz's, I (me) can conclude that shooters PREFER cpz's. Would those facts convince a court? I never claimed they would but if you have any familiarity with our "legal" system, you know it's always 50/50.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Can either case law be created or insurance companies convinced someday in the future? Maybe..."
Things are changing fast and the future may be coming soon (hopefully). I stated early on in this thread that it was my "HOPE that someday one of these lawsuits would prevail". You are trying to get me to prove something I never said.

Suggest removal:

49Sensible(118 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

@KK, In response to the suggestion that a "good" sign might be " CCW IS ENCOURAGED IN THIS ESTABLISHMENT", you said "I'd bet my last dollar that there would NEVER be a robbery or mass murder at THAT place :)"

Later in a comment where you said several things were PROVEN (your emphasis) Background check don't work, Banning weapons doesn't work, then you went on to say that " the only thing that will work ... is to get rid of stupid criminal protection zones".

You seem very confident of that, and I asked if you had any proof. Just a little something beyond conjecture.

Suggest removal:

50HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

Return to your corners guys!
You have both proven one thing, you do not agree, and will probably never agree. so time to move on.

Suggest removal:

51kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

bob- I'll agree with that. It's time to let the voters decide.

Suggest removal:

52Sensible(118 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

@HappyBob...I agree we are at an impasse, time to move on.

@ KK, Thanks for the spirited discussion ! As a result of our discussion I was motivated to research and learned many things that were new to me. I'm more informed for that, so it's a good thing.
.

@ everyone else, I really do want to gather some hard evidence on a business owners liability to their customers with respect to firearms. If anyone can help with that please post here or to the vindy editor.

Suggest removal:

53jojuggie(1478 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

I suggest background checks be mandatory. Let's start with Obama.

Suggest removal:

54NixonCarmichael(3 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

The author of this article is an idiot. I'm as liberal as you can get, but I'm not for gun control, but not for the moronic reasons in the article. First of all, guns do not make anyone safer. I think we can all agree that people with guns generally tend to cause more problems than they solve. Why these psychos think they need assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition is beyond me. If you think you're going to fend off the evil government with your trusty gun, you're mistaken. If Uncle Sam is coming for, its going to be a SWAT team with automatic weapons, vehicles, TRAINING, body armor and everything else. You and your little AR15 aren't doing sh*+. Secondly, criminals do not generally rob houses with people there, they go to EMPTY houses. That said, the reason I'm against gun control is simply because it doesn't solve anything. When you ban guns all you do is create YET ANOTHER black market complete with criminals who are going to break the law anyway. No prohibition has ever worked, ever. It doesn't matter if its guns, pot, alcohol or anything else. If you can't even keep guns and drugs out of maximum security prisons, what the HELL makes you think you can keep them off the street? If you're against gun control, fine, but don't make it because of bullsh*+ reasons like safety and the 2nd ammendment or anything horsesh*+ right wing arguments. /rant

Suggest removal:

55kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 8 months ago

nix- Wrong as you can be but you have a 1A Right to spew your nonsense. You can thank 2A and all of its supporters for that.

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes