login
'The' Gun Thread (Page 35)
-
No new posts
|
 2013-04-18 6:17 PM in reply to: #4706392 |
Elite  6387    |  Subject: RE: 'The' Gun ThreadDanielG - 2013-04-18 5:01 PM Aarondb4 - 2013-04-18 6:22 PM Personally I'm glad the dues I pay the NRA are going to what I give the money to them to do. Well, me and at least 4.5 million other people that give dues to the NRA just as anyone would any union they belonged to. tealeaf - 2013-04-18 4:18 PM powerman - 2013-04-18 5:48 PM So then it is not possible that the bill had some very questionable language, and that the entire bill was not worth progressing further. Again, just like Tony said... if 90% of everyone everywhere wanted it... then it is is a serious slam dunk for reelection, and flat out suicide to go against 90% of the electorate. Not necessarily... it's possible that for many people, their vote doesn't come down to the rep's stance on gun control. However, it is very possible, a virtual certainty in many cases, that big money-donations from groups such as the NRA do come down to the rep's vote on gun control. Could be true, but the NRA get's their voice based on membership numbers as well as money. Perhaps some senators looked at NRA membership numbers in their states and decided to vote against further gun control. There is a reason the membership numbers for the NRA spiked after the last presidential election and after Sandy Hook. Unions? I'm not quite sure how workers paying lots of money to send people to legislatures to get things that serve their best interests applies here. |
| 2013-04-18 6:24 PM in reply to: #4706411 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread powerman - 2013-04-18 7:17 PM DanielG - 2013-04-18 5:01 PM Aarondb4 - 2013-04-18 6:22 PM Personally I'm glad the dues I pay the NRA are going to what I give the money to them to do. Well, me and at least 4.5 million other people that give dues to the NRA just as anyone would any union they belonged to. tealeaf - 2013-04-18 4:18 PM powerman - 2013-04-18 5:48 PM So then it is not possible that the bill had some very questionable language, and that the entire bill was not worth progressing further. Again, just like Tony said... if 90% of everyone everywhere wanted it... then it is is a serious slam dunk for reelection, and flat out suicide to go against 90% of the electorate. Not necessarily... it's possible that for many people, their vote doesn't come down to the rep's stance on gun control. However, it is very possible, a virtual certainty in many cases, that big money-donations from groups such as the NRA do come down to the rep's vote on gun control. Could be true, but the NRA get's their voice based on membership numbers as well as money. Perhaps some senators looked at NRA membership numbers in their states and decided to vote against further gun control. There is a reason the membership numbers for the NRA spiked after the last presidential election and after Sandy Hook. Unions? I'm not quite sure how workers paying lots of money to send people to legislatures to get things that serve their best interests applies here. I figure the AFL-CIO gets together and petitions legislatures to do the bidding of their members. The one primary difference is membership in the NRA is voluntary so each and every one of the members actually had to do something to become a member and has to keep writing checks to keep membership. With the AFL-CIO, most have no choice and the dues are automatically taken out of paychecks whether or not the member wants it. So, union it is, only a voluntary one. (edit) the question I have is how badly do people want to limit unions being able to speak for their membership to the legislatures. Edited by DanielG 2013-04-18 6:26 PM |
| 2013-04-18 9:37 PM in reply to: #4706416 |
Pro 9391  Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread DanielG - 2013-04-18 6:24 PM powerman - 2013-04-18 7:17 PM I figure the AFL-CIO gets together and petitions legislatures to do the bidding of their members. The one primary difference is membership in the NRA is voluntary so each and every one of the members actually had to do something to become a member and has to keep writing checks to keep membership. With the AFL-CIO, most have no choice and the dues are automatically taken out of paychecks whether or not the member wants it. So, union it is, only a voluntary one. (edit) the question I have is how badly do people want to limit unions being able to speak for their membership to the legislatures. DanielG - 2013-04-18 5:01 PM Aarondb4 - 2013-04-18 6:22 PM Personally I'm glad the dues I pay the NRA are going to what I give the money to them to do. Well, me and at least 4.5 million other people that give dues to the NRA just as anyone would any union they belonged to. tealeaf - 2013-04-18 4:18 PM powerman - 2013-04-18 5:48 PM So then it is not possible that the bill had some very questionable language, and that the entire bill was not worth progressing further. Again, just like Tony said... if 90% of everyone everywhere wanted it... then it is is a serious slam dunk for reelection, and flat out suicide to go against 90% of the electorate. Not necessarily... it's possible that for many people, their vote doesn't come down to the rep's stance on gun control. However, it is very possible, a virtual certainty in many cases, that big money-donations from groups such as the NRA do come down to the rep's vote on gun control. Could be true, but the NRA get's their voice based on membership numbers as well as money. Perhaps some senators looked at NRA membership numbers in their states and decided to vote against further gun control. There is a reason the membership numbers for the NRA spiked after the last presidential election and after Sandy Hook. Unions? I'm not quite sure how workers paying lots of money to send people to legislatures to get things that serve their best interests applies here. How about this chart which shows total $ spent by sector for lobbying in 2011: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2011&indexType=c
In case you're wondering where the NRA is, they're $2,905,000 in 2011. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082 So, yeah I'm starting to shift my opinion that our politicians votes were bought by the NRA. |
| 2013-04-18 9:54 PM in reply to: #4706560 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread tuwood - 2013-04-18 9:37 PM DanielG - 2013-04-18 6:24 PM powerman - 2013-04-18 7:17 PM I figure the AFL-CIO gets together and petitions legislatures to do the bidding of their members. The one primary difference is membership in the NRA is voluntary so each and every one of the members actually had to do something to become a member and has to keep writing checks to keep membership. With the AFL-CIO, most have no choice and the dues are automatically taken out of paychecks whether or not the member wants it. So, union it is, only a voluntary one. (edit) the question I have is how badly do people want to limit unions being able to speak for their membership to the legislatures. DanielG - 2013-04-18 5:01 PM Aarondb4 - 2013-04-18 6:22 PM Personally I'm glad the dues I pay the NRA are going to what I give the money to them to do. Well, me and at least 4.5 million other people that give dues to the NRA just as anyone would any union they belonged to. tealeaf - 2013-04-18 4:18 PM powerman - 2013-04-18 5:48 PM So then it is not possible that the bill had some very questionable language, and that the entire bill was not worth progressing further. Again, just like Tony said... if 90% of everyone everywhere wanted it... then it is is a serious slam dunk for reelection, and flat out suicide to go against 90% of the electorate. Not necessarily... it's possible that for many people, their vote doesn't come down to the rep's stance on gun control. However, it is very possible, a virtual certainty in many cases, that big money-donations from groups such as the NRA do come down to the rep's vote on gun control. Could be true, but the NRA get's their voice based on membership numbers as well as money. Perhaps some senators looked at NRA membership numbers in their states and decided to vote against further gun control. There is a reason the membership numbers for the NRA spiked after the last presidential election and after Sandy Hook. Unions? I'm not quite sure how workers paying lots of money to send people to legislatures to get things that serve their best interests applies here. How about this chart which shows total $ spent by sector for lobbying in 2011: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2011&indexType=c
In case you're wondering where the NRA is, they're $2,905,000 in 2011. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082 So, yeah I'm starting to shift my opinion that our politicians votes were bought by the NRA. Yeah, I have a daughter who is a pharm rep.....every time I start hearing about how the NRA "buys votes" I crack up. You should not post facts in this debate....we'll end up with nothing to argue about. |
| 2013-04-19 2:32 AM in reply to: #4643301 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Now here's something interesting. I keep hearing that each amendment required 60 votes and various grumbling about that. Well it seems Sen Reid is responsible for that particular turn of events: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/17/the-gun-a... |
| 2013-04-19 6:23 AM in reply to: #4706343 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread jeffnboise - 2013-04-18 6:10 PM But I'll say again; For or Against the outcome, this was more just another example of a badly broken system than Democracy the way the constitution intended. IMO I find it funny how when the bill you want loses it's a "badly broken system" but when the bill you support passes it's a victory for democracy. That's sort of the sentiment our President was making yesterday. It was a badly worded bill that would have done next to nothing to prevent another Sandy Hook. Why do we need more bad laws gumming up the works? Take the time to write an effective and rational bill. |
| 2013-04-19 8:24 AM in reply to: #4706704 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread TriRSquared - 2013-04-19 5:23 AM jeffnboise - 2013-04-18 6:10 PM But I'll say again; For or Against the outcome, this was more just another example of a badly broken system than Democracy the way the constitution intended. IMO I find it funny how when the bill you want loses it's a "badly broken system" but when the bill you support passes it's a victory for democracy. That's sort of the sentiment our President was making yesterday. It was a badly worded bill that would have done next to nothing to prevent another Sandy Hook. Why do we need more bad laws gumming up the works? Take the time to write an effective and rational bill. Or actually enforce the laws you have. Or, actually prosecute those that attempt to buy a gun by lying on your background check..... OK.. I know I'm being silly... I'll stop. |
| 2013-04-19 8:28 AM in reply to: #4706656 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread DanielG - 2013-04-19 1:32 AM Now here's something interesting. I keep hearing that each amendment required 60 votes and various grumbling about that. Well it seems Sen Reid is responsible for that particular turn of events: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/17/the-gun-a... So Ried was unwilling to allow any compromise or concessions to gun rights advocates, and generally knew there was not enough support for the bill... especially since some (D)s voted against it..... ...but ya, it's all the NRA's fault. |
| 2013-04-19 9:57 AM in reply to: #4706656 |
Expert 3126 Boise, ID | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread DanielG - 2013-04-19 1:32 AM Now here's something interesting. I keep hearing that each amendment required 60 votes and various grumbling about that. Well it seems Sen Reid is responsible for that particular turn of events: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/17/the-gun-a... Very interesting. Especially considering the amendment for national concealed carry had more votes than the background checks did. Sounds like Reid had to set it up to fail. |
| 2013-04-19 12:02 PM in reply to: #4706943 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Aarondb4 - 2013-04-19 9:57 AM DanielG - 2013-04-19 1:32 AM Now here's something interesting. I keep hearing that each amendment required 60 votes and various grumbling about that. Well it seems Sen Reid is responsible for that particular turn of events: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/17/the-gun-a... Very interesting. Especially considering the amendment for national concealed carry had more votes than the background checks did. Sounds like Reid had to set it up to fail. Yeah, I was curious about that too. I didn't know if the national CCW amendment was to get more R support or to make it harder for D's to pass it. On a somewhat related note, my wife got a dose of eduction on the North East's "gun friendliness" last night. We're traveling to Boston the first week of June for a work conference, and with all the current events up there she mentioned that she's glad she has her CCW. I kindly informed her that MA doesn't recognize any out of state permits and she wouldn't be able to carry there. I wish I could have captured a picture of the look on her face. lol |
| 2013-04-19 2:39 PM in reply to: #4643301 |
Veteran 335 | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Speaking of Boston… I don’t want this to be anything other than an observation and thought invoking discussion… One of the CNN reporters stated during an interview something to the effect “how do you think those people feel locked down in their homes and hoping the terrorist does not pick them”. Do you think any of the people, “Locked down” in their own homes, who do not own a firearm picture themselves as vulnerable to the terrorist picking them? Do you think any of the people “locked down” in their homes with a terrorist running the streets wish they had a weapon to defend themselves and their family members? Do you think it will change any of their minds on their right (or their opposition) to owning a firearm to do just that; protect their family? I hope NO family has to come face to face with this person but if it does happen I hope they are firearms owners and better yet very well trained firearm owners. FYI, Just spent lunch with my wife and son at the range with her BDay present.... She like! She like very much!!! |
| 2013-04-19 2:44 PM in reply to: #4707423 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread 1_Mad_Madone - 2013-04-19 2:39 PM Speaking of Boston… I don’t want this to be anything other than an observation and thought invoking discussion… One of the CNN reporters stated during an interview something to the effect “how do you think those people feel locked down in their homes and hoping the terrorist does not pick them”. Do you think any of the people, “Locked down” in their own homes, who do not own a firearm picture themselves as vulnerable to the terrorist picking them? Do you think any of the people “locked down” in their homes with a terrorist running the streets wish they had a weapon to defend themselves and their family members? Do you think it will change any of their minds on their right (or their opposition) to owning a firearm to do just that; protect their family? I hope NO family has to come face to face with this person but if it does happen I hope they are firearms owners and better yet very well trained firearm owners. FYI, Just spent lunch with my wife and son at the range with her BDay present.... She like! She like very much!!! I had a similar conversation with my wife this morning regarding the Boston lock down. Obviously there's no way to know, but I can say being put into a high risk situation is what prompted me to purchase my first gun back in 1998. |
| 2013-04-19 2:47 PM in reply to: #4707423 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread 1_Mad_Madone - 2013-04-19 12:39 PM Speaking of Boston… I don’t want this to be anything other than an observation and thought invoking discussion… One of the CNN reporters stated during an interview something to the effect “how do you think those people feel locked down in their homes and hoping the terrorist does not pick them”. Do you think any of the people, “Locked down” in their own homes, who do not own a firearm picture themselves as vulnerable to the terrorist picking them? Do you think any of the people “locked down” in their homes with a terrorist running the streets wish they had a weapon to defend themselves and their family members? Do you think it will change any of their minds on their right (or their opposition) to owning a firearm to do just that; protect their family? I hope NO family has to come face to face with this person but if it does happen I hope they are firearms owners and better yet very well trained firearm owners. FYI, Just spent lunch with my wife and son at the range with her BDay present.... She like! She like very much!!! Well, the concern is this guy may have explosives strapped to his person. If I had a gun or not, or wished I had a gun or not, I would also think it may do not good against a bomb if they guy comes to my house. Along the same lines of IED's or trip wires or landmines the military deal with. I'm sure having their M-4 on them doesn't offer any comfort to that threat. In a fire fight? Sure.
What made me perk my ears up a little and made me say "I don't know about that". Apparently, in the home to home search the protocol is to knock first. If no answer, they use a blow horn. If no answer? They kick down the door and enter. I know we need to catch this guy, but man, that's pushing the line of illegal search, no? Maybe it's the right thing to do, but I can't help feel icky about it. |
| 2013-04-19 2:50 PM in reply to: #4707432 |
Champion 16151 Checkin' out the podium girls | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Kido - 2013-04-19 3:47 PM 1_Mad_Madone - 2013-04-19 12:39 PM Speaking of Boston… I don’t want this to be anything other than an observation and thought invoking discussion… One of the CNN reporters stated during an interview something to the effect “how do you think those people feel locked down in their homes and hoping the terrorist does not pick them”. Do you think any of the people, “Locked down” in their own homes, who do not own a firearm picture themselves as vulnerable to the terrorist picking them? Do you think any of the people “locked down” in their homes with a terrorist running the streets wish they had a weapon to defend themselves and their family members? Do you think it will change any of their minds on their right (or their opposition) to owning a firearm to do just that; protect their family? I hope NO family has to come face to face with this person but if it does happen I hope they are firearms owners and better yet very well trained firearm owners. FYI, Just spent lunch with my wife and son at the range with her BDay present.... She like! She like very much!!! Well, the concern is this guy may have explosives strapped to his person. If I had a gun or not, or wished I had a gun or not, I would also think it may do not good against a bomb if they guy comes to my house. Along the same lines of IED's or trip wires or landmines the military deal with. I'm sure having their M-4 on them doesn't offer any comfort to that threat. In a fire fight? Sure.
What made me perk my ears up a little and made me say "I don't know about that". Apparently, in the home to home search the protocol is to knock first. If no answer, they use a blow horn. If no answer? They kick down the door and enter. I know we need to catch this guy, but man, that's pushing the line of illegal search, no? Maybe it's the right thing to do, but I can't help feel icky about it. I was wondering about that myself. What warrant or permission to enter do they have for this? I realize the magnitude of the search, but it approaches jack-booted thugs if they simply enter without cause. Or is lack of knowledge about the suspect's location cause enough? |
| 2013-04-19 2:53 PM in reply to: #4707432 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Kido - 2013-04-19 2:47 PM 1_Mad_Madone - 2013-04-19 12:39 PM Speaking of Boston… I don’t want this to be anything other than an observation and thought invoking discussion… One of the CNN reporters stated during an interview something to the effect “how do you think those people feel locked down in their homes and hoping the terrorist does not pick them”. Do you think any of the people, “Locked down” in their own homes, who do not own a firearm picture themselves as vulnerable to the terrorist picking them? Do you think any of the people “locked down” in their homes with a terrorist running the streets wish they had a weapon to defend themselves and their family members? Do you think it will change any of their minds on their right (or their opposition) to owning a firearm to do just that; protect their family? I hope NO family has to come face to face with this person but if it does happen I hope they are firearms owners and better yet very well trained firearm owners. FYI, Just spent lunch with my wife and son at the range with her BDay present.... She like! She like very much!!! Well, the concern is this guy may have explosives strapped to his person. If I had a gun or not, or wished I had a gun or not, I would also think it may do not good against a bomb if they guy comes to my house. Along the same lines of IED's or trip wires or landmines the military deal with. I'm sure having their M-4 on them doesn't offer any comfort to that threat. In a fire fight? Sure.
What made me perk my ears up a little and made me say "I don't know about that". Apparently, in the home to home search the protocol is to knock first. If no answer, they use a blow horn. If no answer? They kick down the door and enter. I know we need to catch this guy, but man, that's pushing the line of illegal search, no? Maybe it's the right thing to do, but I can't help feel icky about it. I have no idea if the are doing what you wrote or not. If they are, then yes, that is pushing the line. A court will decide if it crosses the line. Under exigent circumstances warrantless entries are made all of the time. Is this an exigent circumstance? Again, I don't know. If they can articulate that they have the area sealed off and that this person has to be in that sealed off area, then for the sake of public safety (a lawful exigent circumstance), they will make those entries. |
| 2013-04-19 2:55 PM in reply to: #4707445 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Left Brain - 2013-04-19 12:53 PM Kido - 2013-04-19 2:47 PM Well, the concern is this guy may have explosives strapped to his person. If I had a gun or not, or wished I had a gun or not, I would also think it may do not good against a bomb if they guy comes to my house. Along the same lines of IED's or trip wires or landmines the military deal with. I'm sure having their M-4 on them doesn't offer any comfort to that threat. In a fire fight? Sure.
What made me perk my ears up a little and made me say "I don't know about that". Apparently, in the home to home search the protocol is to knock first. If no answer, they use a blow horn. If no answer? They kick down the door and enter. I know we need to catch this guy, but man, that's pushing the line of illegal search, no? Maybe it's the right thing to do, but I can't help feel icky about it. I have no idea if the are doing what you wrote or not. If they are, then yes, that is pushing the line. A court will decide if it crosses the line. Under exigent circumstances warrantless entries are made all of the time. Is this an exigent circumstance? Again, I don't know. If they can articulate that they have the area sealed off and that this person has to be in that sealed off area, then for the sake of public safety (a lawful exigent circumstance), they will make those entries. I guess technically, I don't KNOW either. I heard it on CNN this morning. Been listening all morning (have it on in the background). My other current rant is the unreliability of the media. So it may not be the case. |
| 2013-04-19 2:56 PM in reply to: #4707439 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread pitt83 - 2013-04-19 2:50 PM Kido - 2013-04-19 3:47 PM I was wondering about that myself. What warrant or permission to enter do they have for this? I realize the magnitude of the search, but it approaches jack-booted thugs if they simply enter without cause. Or is lack of knowledge about the suspect's location cause enough? 1_Mad_Madone - 2013-04-19 12:39 PM Speaking of Boston… I don’t want this to be anything other than an observation and thought invoking discussion… One of the CNN reporters stated during an interview something to the effect “how do you think those people feel locked down in their homes and hoping the terrorist does not pick them”. Do you think any of the people, “Locked down” in their own homes, who do not own a firearm picture themselves as vulnerable to the terrorist picking them? Do you think any of the people “locked down” in their homes with a terrorist running the streets wish they had a weapon to defend themselves and their family members? Do you think it will change any of their minds on their right (or their opposition) to owning a firearm to do just that; protect their family? I hope NO family has to come face to face with this person but if it does happen I hope they are firearms owners and better yet very well trained firearm owners. FYI, Just spent lunch with my wife and son at the range with her BDay present.... She like! She like very much!!! Well, the concern is this guy may have explosives strapped to his person. If I had a gun or not, or wished I had a gun or not, I would also think it may do not good against a bomb if they guy comes to my house. Along the same lines of IED's or trip wires or landmines the military deal with. I'm sure having their M-4 on them doesn't offer any comfort to that threat. In a fire fight? Sure.
What made me perk my ears up a little and made me say "I don't know about that". Apparently, in the home to home search the protocol is to knock first. If no answer, they use a blow horn. If no answer? They kick down the door and enter. I know we need to catch this guy, but man, that's pushing the line of illegal search, no? Maybe it's the right thing to do, but I can't help feel icky about it. You are looking at it completely backward. It is the fact that they can articulate A SPECIFIC AREA that they will hang their hat on. Like I said, a court will ultimately decide if it is lawful, provided that someone brings it before a court. The Police make decisions like this every day. It's where case law comes from. ETA - to be clear....I have no idea if they are making warrantless searches....I am responding to Kido's post. Edited by Left Brain 2013-04-19 2:57 PM |
| 2013-04-19 2:58 PM in reply to: #4707452 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Left Brain - 2013-04-19 12:56 PM You are looking at it completely backward. It is the fact that they can articulate A SPECIFIC AREA that they will hang their hat on. Like I said, a court will ultimately decide if it is lawful, provided that someone brings it before a court. The Police make decisions like this every day. It's where case law comes from. ETA - to be clear....I have no idea if they are making warrantless searches....I am responding to Kido's post. Right, I see it this way. If they "know" he is within a certain area, I see it justifiable to "clear" the area and catch him. If they DON'T know he's in the area and they are kicking down doors just to see? That concerns me. |
| 2013-04-19 3:03 PM in reply to: #4707457 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Kido - 2013-04-19 2:58 PM Left Brain - 2013-04-19 12:56 PM You are looking at it completely backward. It is the fact that they can articulate A SPECIFIC AREA that they will hang their hat on. Like I said, a court will ultimately decide if it is lawful, provided that someone brings it before a court. The Police make decisions like this every day. It's where case law comes from. ETA - to be clear....I have no idea if they are making warrantless searches....I am responding to Kido's post. Right, I see it this way. If they "know" he is within a certain area, I see it justifiable to "clear" the area and catch him. If they DON'T know he's in the area and they are kicking down doors just to see? That concerns me. Did you ever watch the youtube video of them going door to door confiscating and destroying guns in New Orleans. Our rights and protections may be well spelled out, but as soon as the government feels it's enough of an emergency it all goes out the window very quickly. |
| 2013-04-19 3:07 PM in reply to: #4707466 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread tuwood - 2013-04-19 3:03 PM Kido - 2013-04-19 2:58 PM Left Brain - 2013-04-19 12:56 PM You are looking at it completely backward. It is the fact that they can articulate A SPECIFIC AREA that they will hang their hat on. Like I said, a court will ultimately decide if it is lawful, provided that someone brings it before a court. The Police make decisions like this every day. It's where case law comes from. ETA - to be clear....I have no idea if they are making warrantless searches....I am responding to Kido's post. Right, I see it this way. If they "know" he is within a certain area, I see it justifiable to "clear" the area and catch him. If they DON'T know he's in the area and they are kicking down doors just to see? That concerns me. Did you ever watch the youtube video of them going door to door confiscating and destroying guns in New Orleans. Our rights and protections may be well spelled out, but as soon as the government feels it's enough of an emergency it all goes out the window very quickly. To be sure, there are plenty of provisions, within the law, for warrantless searches. |
| 2013-04-19 3:37 PM in reply to: #4643301 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Obama taking executive action on guns after Senate vote The Obama administration was starting a process Friday aimed at removing barriers in health privacy laws that prevent some states from reporting information to the background check system. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/19/obama-taking-executive-a... |
| 2013-04-19 4:02 PM in reply to: #4707504 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread DanielG - 2013-04-19 3:37 PM Obama taking executive action on guns after Senate vote Just when you thought it was over. :)
Edited by tuwood 2013-04-19 4:23 PM |
| 2013-04-19 4:54 PM in reply to: #4707423 |
Expert 3126 Boise, ID | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread 1_Mad_Madone - 2013-04-19 1:39 PM Speaking of Boston… I don’t want this to be anything other than an observation and thought invoking discussion… One of the CNN reporters stated during an interview something to the effect “how do you think those people feel locked down in their homes and hoping the terrorist does not pick them”. Do you think any of the people, “Locked down” in their own homes, who do not own a firearm picture themselves as vulnerable to the terrorist picking them? Do you think any of the people “locked down” in their homes with a terrorist running the streets wish they had a weapon to defend themselves and their family members? Do you think it will change any of their minds on their right (or their opposition) to owning a firearm to do just that; protect their family? I hope NO family has to come face to face with this person but if it does happen I hope they are firearms owners and better yet very well trained firearm owners. FYI, Just spent lunch with my wife and son at the range with her BDay present.... She like! She like very much!!! Ahem! Gun Thread rules dictate that you at least tell us what you bought for her and if you are feeling generous post a pic. Otherwise you have to keep info like this to yourself!
|
| 2013-04-20 3:53 PM in reply to: #4707504 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread DanielG - 2013-04-19 4:37 PM Obama taking executive action on guns after Senate vote The Obama administration was starting a process Friday aimed at removing barriers in health privacy laws that prevent some states from reporting information to the background check system. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/19/obama-taking-executive-action-on-guns-after-senate-vote/?test=latestnews#ixzz2QwZ0t67d[ Lots of thoughts on this. At the core it's not a bad thing. If someone is wacko I want the feds to know and for them to deny a gun purchase. The hard part is how do you define that. Also what other factors could be considered "alarming" (alcoholism, depression, ADHD?) Regardless I want Congress to vote on this however. I'm sick of King Obama passing executive orders. Edited by TriRSquared 2013-04-20 3:54 PM |
| 2013-04-20 4:36 PM in reply to: #4708418 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread TriRSquared - 2013-04-20 3:53 PM DanielG - 2013-04-19 4:37 PM Obama taking executive action on guns after Senate vote The Obama administration was starting a process Friday aimed at removing barriers in health privacy laws that prevent some states from reporting information to the background check system. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/19/obama-taking-executive-action-on-guns-after-senate-vote/?test=latestnews#ixzz2QwZ0t67d[ Lots of thoughts on this. At the core it's not a bad thing. If someone is wacko I want the feds to know and for them to deny a gun purchase. The hard part is how do you define that. Also what other factors could be considered "alarming" (alcoholism, depression, ADHD?) Regardless I want Congress to vote on this however. I'm sick of King Obama passing executive orders. ADHD? ah crap. I'm screwed. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK