HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » (Virginia) Tech families ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 01:27 PM

(Virginia) Tech families want 1-gun-a-month law to stay

http://www.necn.com/02/25/12/Tech-families-want-1-gun-a-month-law-to-/landing_politics.html?&apID=2adbf7852b304df79db9ed5669026a1f

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — The parent of a Virginia Tech student wounded in the 2007 campus massacre says he's hopeful after appealing to Gov. Bob McDonnell (edit R - Transvaginal Ultrasound Mandate) to keep the state's one-gun-a-month law in place.

Andrew Goddard said McDonnell listened intently Saturday during a conference call with the families of Virginia Tech survivors and victims. He said the governor promised to get back to the group next week.

The Virginia Senate passed legislation earlier this month repealing the 1993 law, all but ensuring the demise of a statute enacted after the state became a supplier of guns used in crimes in major East Coast cities.

<more>

181 replies, 19641 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 181 replies Author Time Post
Reply (Virginia) Tech families want 1-gun-a-month law to stay (Original post)
jpak Feb 2012 OP
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #1
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2012 #3
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #5
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2012 #8
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #12
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2012 #19
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #22
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2012 #42
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #45
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #137
rl6214 Feb 2012 #52
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #54
ManiacJoe Feb 2012 #60
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #65
rl6214 Feb 2012 #93
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #95
PavePusher Feb 2012 #97
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #101
rl6214 Feb 2012 #108
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #118
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #141
one-eyed fat man Feb 2012 #56
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #134
gejohnston Feb 2012 #151
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #152
gejohnston Feb 2012 #155
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #156
gejohnston Feb 2012 #157
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #158
gejohnston Feb 2012 #159
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #160
gejohnston Feb 2012 #168
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #169
oneshooter Feb 2012 #161
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #162
one-eyed fat man Feb 2012 #176
one-eyed fat man Feb 2012 #175
GreenStormCloud Feb 2012 #181
ileus Feb 2012 #62
AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #136
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #148
AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #179
rl6214 Feb 2012 #51
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #66
rl6214 Feb 2012 #94
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #96
rl6214 Feb 2012 #109
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #113
rl6214 Feb 2012 #115
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #117
AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #138
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #142
AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #177
PavePusher Feb 2012 #2
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2012 #4
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #6
oneshooter Feb 2012 #7
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #9
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2012 #14
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #15
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2012 #18
Callisto32 Feb 2012 #20
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2012 #25
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #27
Fortran Feb 2012 #29
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #31
Fortran Feb 2012 #33
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #39
Fortran Feb 2012 #40
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #41
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2012 #47
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #49
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2012 #58
BiggJawn Feb 2012 #63
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #64
BiggJawn Feb 2012 #85
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #86
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2012 #44
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #48
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2012 #50
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #55
Callisto32 Feb 2012 #73
Fortran Feb 2012 #28
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #35
Fortran Feb 2012 #37
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #38
pipoman Feb 2012 #67
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #68
pipoman Feb 2012 #69
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #70
pipoman Feb 2012 #71
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #72
pipoman Feb 2012 #76
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #77
pipoman Feb 2012 #98
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #102
pipoman Feb 2012 #119
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #120
beevul Feb 2012 #82
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #87
GreenStormCloud Feb 2012 #125
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #128
beevul Feb 2012 #172
Callisto32 Feb 2012 #74
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #75
PavePusher Feb 2012 #79
era veteran Feb 2012 #24
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #26
Fortran Feb 2012 #30
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #32
Fortran Feb 2012 #34
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #36
oneshooter Feb 2012 #83
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #144
AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #139
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #143
AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #178
oneshooter Feb 2012 #43
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #53
rl6214 Feb 2012 #112
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #116
Johnny Rico Feb 2012 #23
oneshooter Feb 2012 #46
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #122
oneshooter Feb 2012 #133
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #135
oneshooter Feb 2012 #146
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #147
oneshooter Feb 2012 #149
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #150
oneshooter Feb 2012 #170
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #171
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2012 #10
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #11
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2012 #17
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #21
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #123
Clames Feb 2012 #13
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #16
era veteran Feb 2012 #57
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #59
PavePusher Feb 2012 #80
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #88
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #124
PavePusher Feb 2012 #78
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #91
PavePusher Feb 2012 #99
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #103
PavePusher Feb 2012 #107
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #130
GreenStormCloud Feb 2012 #121
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #127
GreenStormCloud Feb 2012 #131
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #132
PavePusher Feb 2012 #153
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #154
ileus Feb 2012 #61
PavePusher Feb 2012 #81
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #89
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #92
PavePusher Feb 2012 #100
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #105
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2012 #163
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #164
PavePusher Feb 2012 #173
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #110
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2012 #165
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #167
AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #140
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #145
AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #180
beevul Feb 2012 #84
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #90
PavePusher Feb 2012 #104
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #106
Clames Feb 2012 #111
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #114
Clames Feb 2012 #126
fightthegoodfightnow Feb 2012 #129
beevul Feb 2012 #166
PavePusher Feb 2012 #174

Response to jpak (Original post)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 01:41 PM

1. Indeed

Heh gun lobby......do you really think a student needs to bring more than one gun to class to disrupt the learning environment or to 'protect' him/herself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 05:42 PM

3. The VT killer OBEYED the "1 gun per month" law. So what good did it do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 05:48 PM

5. One Gun

Do you need more than one gun to protect you?
Do you need more than one gun to go hunting?
Do you need more than one gun to go target shooting?

More guns mean more opportunity for theft.
More guns benefit no one.

As for Virginia Tech shooter, apparently dozens of armed police couldn't stop him in time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #5)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 06:05 PM

8. I think you're confused about what that law actually did. There was no limit on the # of guns owned.

That wasn't "buy and keep one gun", it was "buy one handgun a month"- Virginians could still buy and keep twelve handguns a year if they could afford them, along with all the long guns they wanted.

So, again: What good did this law do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #8)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 06:14 PM

12. Reduces Number of Guns

Sure you can have as many as you can buy----just one a month.

12 a year.
120 in a decade.

Who seriously needs more and what are the risks (more) and benefits (none)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #12)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 06:31 PM

19. What good did the absence of legal handguns since the '70s do for DC?

Kept the violent crime and murder rates down, did it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #19)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 06:43 PM

22. Another Soundbite

Why did DC voters, every mayor and every city council for decades reject the logic that is so self apparent to you?

Should we know what's better for our community than you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #22)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 08:00 PM

42. I asked "What good did DC's handgun ban do?". It seems a simple question.

Perhaps you could actually answer it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #42)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 08:03 PM

45. See Previous Post

Questions are just as simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #8)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:29 PM

137. Correct

....no limit in the number of guns you can own.

What's the problem again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #5)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 08:22 PM

52. Police aren't there to stop crimes or to protect anyone

 

they are there to investigate and clean up the mess after the event has happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #52)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 08:31 PM

54. Seriously?

Police aren't there to stop crimes or protect anyone?

Well THEY don't need guns to 'investigate or clean up the mess'.

But of course they do protect and they do stop crime and they should carry guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #54)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 10:33 PM

60. Seriously.

The police do interrupt crimes and do protect individuals in the process, when they can. However, both the police and the courts acknowledge that doing do is not their main function. The job of the police is to protect and serve the community as a whole by investigating crimes after they occur and arresting the suspects for trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #60)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 11:19 PM

65. Glad You Changed Your Mind

.....with your first sentence.

As for the rest, it's simply not true.

Just ask any one of the cops you see on the streets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #54)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 02:59 PM

93. Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

 

NY Times, police do not have a consitutional duty to protect someone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #93)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 03:20 PM

95. Oh Goody

.....now tell all those police departments to repaint their cars (you know -do the google search by image).

Constitutional right? Who the heck said anything about that? There's no 'right'. It's what they do.

How about some good old common sense? Heck, there's a cop movie named with that phrase!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #95)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:08 PM

97. "How about some good old common sense?"

 

Huh, I had no idea that catchy slogans and movie titles had greater legal weight than actual judical precedent and empirical evidence.

"common sense", indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #97)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:19 PM

101. Who Said They Do?

Not me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #95)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:34 PM

108. Oh so everything involving the police should be based upon slogans painted on cop cars?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #108)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:12 PM

118. Nah

But heh....go ahead and tell a cop s/he doesn't protect or serve.

I suspect they will laugh to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #52)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:34 PM

141. Got It

....according to you.

MEMO TO COPS: We don't pay you to stop crime or protect anyone. Please turn in your government owned guns now. And if you see a crime commited, be sure to tell someone so we can investigate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #5)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 08:46 PM

56. You should look at the video

A student shot cell phone video of the stalwart campus police wandering about aimlessly, shooing away students, all the while waiting for the "real" police to show up.

You can listen to Cho leisurely shooting at an unhurried pace. until the SWAT team finally shows up and breaches the door. He killed himself almost immediately after the ARMED police entered the building.



Cho had almost a half hour to wander the building expending 174 rounds before "real police" entered the building. He reloaded 17 times using "ban legal" 10 round magazines. This while the campus police didn't do anything but secure the perimeter ensuring no one would interfere with the shooter unduly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to one-eyed fat man (Reply #56)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:20 PM

134. See Your Point

.....securing the area so no one is in harm's way is a very, very bad thing.

Nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #134)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 07:13 PM

151. not what he was saying

he was saying that while everyone else was securing the area, at least a couple of them could have went in after him. VT police do have shotguns in their cars don't they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #151)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 07:31 PM

152. Ok


...I'll assume what you say is true.

Just supports my position that having more guns doesn't mean there's increased chance the nut case will be taken down.

I more inclined to put blame on the actual nut case and those who enabled him to have a gun rather than those who thought they were doing the right thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #152)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:03 PM

155. I blame only Cho

and maybe those around him that saw he was nuts.
Sorry, I fail to see how that supports your position. Another gun (or crossbow, throwing stars, atlatl, for that matter) would increase the chance of Cho being "neutralized" earlier, saving at least one life. The only thing we know for certain, is that another gun could not have made it worse.
Look at it this way, you are locked inside the building, no training in escape and evasion, no place to hide, and no means (that you can find) to defend yourself. If you happened to be near a window, you see the cops just standing around. Put yourself in those shoes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #155)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:10 PM

156. There Were Dozens of Tech Police

.....with guns and as you or someone pointed out, they didn't 'neutralize' him. I don't fault them. So even with all those guns, he wasn't taken down. Like you, I fault Choi. Unlike you, I also fault those who enabled him to have a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #156)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:21 PM

157. I don't blame the individual cops

I blame their bosses or their bosses.they were following orders, but whoever made the policy to just stand around and wait for SWAT shares some responsibility.
It is not the guns, it is who has them.
You sell a guy a car, who then gets drunk off his ass and drives that car into a playground killing a couple of kids. Are you responsible?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #157)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:31 PM

158. Comparing Law Abiding Cops

...to a bad driver who breaks the law and kills is not.....equitable.

I don't blame them. They did their best in a bad situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #158)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:35 PM

159. You misread what I said

guy who sold the car=guy who sold the gun
the driver=Cho

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #159)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:37 PM

160. Huh?

Were they both mentally competent to drive a car or shoot a gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #160)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 09:14 PM

168. no, and neither seller knew that.

because the clerk had no way of knowing that Cho was ruled mentally incompetent (making him a prohibited person). That is not on him or the NRA. The clerk only knew what the FBI told him. The FBI did not know because Virginia didn't bother to tell them.
Cho violated the Gun Control Act of 1968 by lying on the ATF form 4473. He then went on to commit mass murder.

The clerk would be to blame only if he knew Cho to be lying. Then the clerk would be in federal prison for violating GCA.
A Virginia court ruled Cho off his rocker
Virginia forgot to tell the FBI, leaving them in the dark
The FBI told the clerk to proceed with the sale based on the false information from Virginia
The clerk sold the gun because the FBI said Cho was OK.

with the car driver:
the seller had no way of knowing the buyer had multiple DUIs and was an alcoholic. He is not to blame.
The driver is the only one to blame.

It sounds like you are for prosecuting people who committed no crime, had no way of knowing what as about to happen, for an act someone else did.
That is like the liability protection. It only protects the gun industry from law suits that are basically SLAPP suits (filing friviolus and absurd lawsuits for the sole purpose of driving the target to financial ruin. The tactic was pioneered by corporate criminals to deal with pesky environmental/social justice advocates.)
When was that product liability passed? In 2002, Brady won one suit against Kahr arms because Kahr (IIRC) had a felon working for them (a crime). What the felon had to with the crime gun I can only speculate. But at the least, some HR people should have been canned.

For example:
Ruger makes a pistol, legally sells it to wholesaler with ATF oversight. In this case, NYPD decides to decides to buy Ruger pistols. Wholesaler sells the guns (legally with ATF oversight) to NYPD. Gangsters break into the police armory (like LAPD losing 20 SMGs and several pistols) or (this being NYPD), a cop sells some of those guns to a gang. The gang murders someone. Brady goes after the wholesaler and Ruger, but not the people who are actually responsible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #168)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 09:34 PM

169. There's alot in your post

I'll give it some thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #158)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:40 PM

161. And their best was, at best, nothing. The failure is with the Va. state system of reporting

to the Feds. No one individual to blame, without this reporting in a timely manner the sale was approved.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #161)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:43 PM

162. That

....sounds more reasonable than blaming cops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #156)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 09:37 AM

176. Those who enabled him to have a gun

Start with his mother. She had to know she spawned a nutcase by that time. Blame everyone who came out of the woodwork saying how they "just knew" he was deranged, but did not do a damn thing about it.

Blame all those who didn't have him committed or the judge who didn't order his mental disqualifications to be included in the NICS database. Can't fail a background check if the file is empty.

The campus police and the University have more than a little blame. Cho had been the subject of many complaints, he was not unknown to them. He shot two people early that morning. He had time to go to town and mail his manifesto to NBC news and come back on campus. Cops all over the place, as the first victims had been discovered by that time, Cho comes back dressed in all black, trench coat, backpack, like he had come from Central Casting in a cheap movie. Walks across campus, chains the doors shut on Norris Hall and starts casually walking around shooting people.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #134)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 09:21 AM

175. Maybe you should remember Texas

Before SWAT, it was a pair of beat cops who climbed the Tower and shot Charles Whitman. No bullet proof vests, no high capacity Glocks, no Patrol Rifles, no radios on their hip, no helicopters overhead for surveillance, just six shot .38 Special revolvers, the shotgun from their squad car and the balls to do their duty.

The campus cops at Virginia Tech used the same techniques that were decried as inadequate after Columbine. In the aftermath of Columbine police procedures for an active shooter were supposed to change so the first cops who showed up went in after the guy. Clearly procdures and training were inadequate.

Going back to the video, after the REAL cops use a shotgun to breach the door at Norris Hall you hear only one more gunshot from inside. That was Cho killing himself.

What good it it do for the entire Virgina Tech campus police force to stand around for a half hour shooing away the curious? It is hard not to believe that had Cho been challenged by an armed cop sooner he'd have ended it the same way, but with a lot fewer victims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #134)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 12:29 PM

181. Yes, it was a very bad thing.

Securing the area should take a lower priority than stopping the shooter. Securing the area allows him to keep on shooting. Stopping him stops the shooting thereby saving the lives of those inside.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #5)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 10:59 PM

62. yes...yes...and yes

Conceal carry = sub compact, and compact.

Home defense = full sized pistol, shotgun and carbine.

Hunting. 22,12ga, 243 minimum of three long guns and a 22 and 44 mag hunting pistol

Target shooting, 22 pistol 22 rifle, 220 swift, 308, 45 1911, 9mm target, 28 ga and 12ga shotgun.

Plinking 223 rifle, 22 rifle and pistol,

Next is collecting.....dozens of all types can be bought to complete a collection.

The gun a month only covers handguns and doesn't even apply to CHP holders. Why hold the economy back, if people have the disposable income to blow on a hobby let them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:27 PM

136. Yes, actually.

A rifle suitable for small game like a coyote, is not appropriate for shooting a deer, and a deer rifle may not be appropriate for shooting a bear or moose.

So yes, we do need more than one gun for hunting, unless you know of hunters that only hunt one solitary species.

Same for target shooting. There are different targets, different ranges, different classes of competition, and all use different types of firearms. From single-action cowboy to pistol competition, shotguns, long range rifle, etc.

For 'protection' I use the most gun available. When I'm out and about, that means a pistol. Different styles of clothing demand different firearms to ensure concealment. Around the house, it's a rifle or a shotgun.

Maybe if you knew ANYTHING about shooting, you would know this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #136)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:51 PM

148. So......

.....12 a year would about cover it. That's one a month......right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #148)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 11:34 AM

179. For many users, that would probably be fine.

I've gone years without buying a new firearm. Then again, I've acquired several in a single month for various perfectly legal and honrable purposes.

This seems like a solution looking for a problem. What EXACTLY is it you are trying to solve with the 'one gun a month' thing? It has zero impact on issues like Virginia Tech, or Columbine..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 08:20 PM

51. Why don't you ask the likes of Cho?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #51)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 11:20 PM

66. You Go Ahead

I don't need to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #66)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 03:03 PM

94. You don't need to because you are afraid of the answer.

 

Cho walked around and took his time shooting the unarmed while the campus police sat on their thumbs and waited for the real cops to show up. As soon a someone with a gun (the real cops) showed up, he shot himself. Had ANY of those students or profs been armed it could have been stopped a lot sooner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #94)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:04 PM

96. What a Crock

Campus police ARE armed at Virginia Tech.

The notion he shot himself because he was somehow afraid of the cops is just absurd.

He shot others and himself because he was socially isolated and mentally disturbed.....oh, and he was still allowed to buy a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #96)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:40 PM

109. You seriously cant be believing the BS you are peddling

 

The "armed" campus police sat on their thumbs allowing dozens of students to be shot. They did nothing.

He kept on shooting until the swat team got into the building, then he killed himself. I guess he did that because he wanted to be a nice guy and not shoot at the cops.

"He shot others and himself because he was socially isolated and mentally disturbed.....oh, and he was still allowed to buy a gun."

Which he purchase legally. You just can't look at someone and tell they are mentally disturbed. Maybe you could lend your powers to the authorities so they can prevent this from happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #109)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:50 PM

113. Reality

Here's the reality: He purchased legally despite having well documented mental health issues.

Why? Well, the gun lobby didn't think they rise to the level to warrant restricting his ability to buy a gun.

As for your claim the armed cops did 'nothing', I'll leave you to lobby for revocation of their NRA membership. If they did nothing, so much for your claim that having a gun would have prevented it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #113)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:58 PM

115. Reality?

 

"Here's the reality: He purchased legally despite having well documented mental health issues."

Where was it "well documented"? Why didn't the nics background check know anything about this "well documented mental health issues"?

"Why? Well, the gun lobby didn't think they rise to the level to warrant restricting his ability to buy a gun. "

More BS. What did the gun lobby have anything to do with his mental health issues and his ability to buy a gun. They didn't put the info into the background check system. That's not their job.

"As for your claim the armed cops did 'nothing', I'll leave you to lobby for revocation of their NRA membership."

Don't even know WTF you're going on about here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #115)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:09 PM

117. Gosh

...ok.

Are you saying he didn't have documented mental health issues?

What's not whose job?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #113)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:31 PM

138. No, he was able to because ONE STATE had weak mental health reporting mechanisms.

What Cho did, he couldn't have done in Washington State.

The 'gun lobby' didn't cause that. In fact, the gun lobby has sponsored and passed legislation setting reporting requirements around NICS for mental health. The NRA was as instrumental in passing NICS as the Brady coalition was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #138)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:38 PM

142. So....

.....you think that the NRA should support and Virginia should enact that portion of Washington state's law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #142)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 11:28 AM

177. They have long since done so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 02:58 PM

2. So, how did this law have anything to do with VT?

 

Can you prove that it reduces crime? I'm betting.... not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #2)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 05:44 PM

4. You do know you're ruining a perfectly good appeal to emotion, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #2)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 05:55 PM

6. More Guns

Having more guns doesn't increase likelihood of more being stolen?

Tell me how many guns is sufficient to meet your needs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #6)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 06:03 PM

7. Well I have just over 200 in my collection, and just bought another 30 gun safe.


And have room in the gunroom for 2 more.

So many choices!

"Tell me how many guns is sufficient to meet your needs?" As many as I have the funds to legally obtain. what limits would you place on it?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 06:07 PM

9. One a Month Works for Me

So if you were robbed when away from house, you'd have 230+ guns at risk?

Yea, I'd say that's more than 'oneshooter' needs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #9)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 06:16 PM

14. *Do* let us know when the Senate confirms you as Secretary of Needs.

Until then, your opinion of what oneshooter 'needs' will not matter in the least.

In the meantime,of course, you are perfectly free to not own a gun...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #14)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 06:18 PM

15. Can I Be a Free

........from the ramifications of you and other gun owners from having one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 06:26 PM

18. No more than I can be free of the ramifications of your free speech.

A situation that I heartily endorse, btw...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 06:32 PM

20. No, you cannot.

You have no right to enforce such restrictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 07:05 PM

25. Absolutely!

Just move.

There have to be places where no one may own arms and the rules are strictly enforced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #25)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 07:12 PM

27. You First

Who would have thought the whole 'love it or leave it' 1960's Vietnam mantra of the political right would be embraced by a Democratic Underground member today?

Hint- we live in a democracy.

LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #27)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 07:29 PM

29. We live in a democratic republic. Majority rules unless it fucks with minorities.

 

I'd have thought DUers would have known that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortran (Reply #29)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 07:36 PM

31. Republic?

When can this law abiding tax paying US citizen expect to have voting represention in Congress?

This is not a republic.

And my options are not only to either love it leave it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #31)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 07:38 PM

33. You don't think the USA is a democratic republic? Wow.

 

I can't think of anything to say that wouldn't get me booted. Let's just say and

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortran (Reply #33)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 07:51 PM

39. Do I Have a Voting Member

...in the House or Senate? I do not.

What's sad is you are laughing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #39)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 07:56 PM

40. All my congresspeople are assholes. That doesn't mean the system is unworkable.

 

What the hell is wrong with you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortran (Reply #40)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 07:59 PM

41. You Get To Vote

....them in or out of office. I don't.

Nothing 'wrong' with me. Why do you ask?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #41)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 08:07 PM

47. 'cuse me...

...you do, to...


But you still need to move....


...or maybe change the law...


DC is maybe due for an 'occupy the district' movement, you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #47)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 08:11 PM

49. Gosh

No I don't.
No I won't.
Yes you can.
Yes we do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #49)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 08:50 PM

58. I'm with you.

Yes you can.
Yes we do.


Start something. It would be a move in the right direction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #41)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 11:13 PM

63. You can't vote them in or out?

You live in DC?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BiggJawn (Reply #63)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 11:15 PM

64. Correct

I live in DC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #64)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 10:40 AM

85. My sympathies.

Beautiful city, fucked up laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BiggJawn (Reply #85)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 10:47 AM

86. Write Your Member of Congress

Everyone else does.

Our laws have to pass our city council, our mayor, referendum recall, your House, your Senate, our President and the approval of every blogger in America.

What a @$%$ing mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #27)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 08:03 PM

44. We do indeed.

That democracy is practiced in the election of officials. Individual rights are not subject 'to a vote' not to prior restraint or suspension without due process.

Rights are attributes of humanity. A right cannot be legislated away. If that were true, whatever group that was in minority, would be subject to unreasonable restrictions.

Hint - we are humans not cattle.

NLAA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #44)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 08:09 PM

48. Elected Officials?

There are hundreds of thousands of law abiding tax paying legal citizens who are mentally competent and of legal voting age who have no voting represention in the House or Senate.

Don't lecture on majority or minority rights about guns or anything else until that is fixed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #48)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 08:15 PM

50. Look buddy...

...I sympathize with you and the other DC residents. You guys have a raw deal. History is the just one long list of folks that had raw deals.

If you believe that denying rights, somehow improves your situation, that's fine but it's not logical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #50)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 08:38 PM

55. Thank You

Thank you for at least acknowledging the raw deal.

I reject, however, your notion that anyones rights were denied or that I should be concerned about whether our 'situation' would be different if the citizens of DC agreed with your interpretation of the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #55)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:30 AM

73. Clearly, Old Ben had never been to DC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 07:27 PM

28. Sure, you can move to a country without a a Bill of Rights.

 

See how simple it is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortran (Reply #28)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 07:40 PM

35. Wow

So original.

Read other posts in thread.

The whole 'love it or leave it' Vietnam mantra of the 1960s political right finds a DU friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #35)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 07:42 PM

37. I didn't say you must love it. You only have to respect it.

 

We all have that responsibility as citizens. Again, I'm surprised a DUer doesn't know basic American civics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortran (Reply #37)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 07:47 PM

38. Basic Civics?

You mean like 'no taxation without representation?

You mean like voting rights are a fundamental principal of a republic?

You mean like my right to vote should not be dependent on who or what I respect?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #38)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 07:48 AM

67. This is always your cross to bear

did you know the situation when you decided to live in DC? I'm guessing so. You have the freedom to pick your shit up and move 10 miles...your problem is solved. Most here either support or at least do not oppose DC voting and representation. Your plight has not a single thing to do with 2nd amendment rights or this thread. How about trying to stay on subject for a change instead of beating that dead horse again, and again, and again----->?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #67)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 07:55 AM

68. Got It

Your (gun) rights are important.

My voting rights are not.

So tell me again, why the gun lobby amended the last proposed Voting Rights bill for DC?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #68)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:06 AM

69. Correct

your voting rights are not important in the context of this thread. Your voting rights have not a single thing to do with the subject at hand. Do you bring this to every thread you respond to regardless the subject? Apparently. You are free to start or participate in every DC voting rights threads, not to change the subject of every thread. Again, did you know the situation in DC when you decided to live there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #69)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:11 AM

70. Are We Talking Guns?

You state: "Your voting rights have not a single thing to do with the subject at hand."

Again, WHY did the gun lobby amend the last DC Voting Rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #70)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:22 AM

71. You do realize this isn't the topic of this thread, no?

You are certainly free to start a new thread all about your concerns.

So you did know the situation in DC when you decided to live there yet chose to live there anyway. Now you cry daily about the decision you made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #71)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:30 AM

72. Guns are the Topic

At your request, I'll stick to guns and not to why I live in DC.

So why did the gun lobby amend the last DC voting rights bill?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #72)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 09:08 AM

76. Wrong

Guns are the topic of the group. The topic of this thread is very specific as with all threads here...the topic of this thread is a proposed change to gun laws in Virginia. Not a single thing to do with DC. Please try to follow along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #76)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 09:24 AM

77. Oh..........

......weeping Jesus indeed.....so why do you want to talk about why I live in DC again? Right. But heh, the profanity was a nice touch.

As a Va. Tech alumnus, I support the University's position: no guns on campus.

I also oppose any student buying more than one gun a month off campus......until perhaps that same person reads at least one book a month.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #77)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:08 PM

98. Exactly what profanity would that be? Care to retract?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #98)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:19 PM

102. No

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #102)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:15 PM

119. I have always disagreed with you on this subject,

but I have never questioned your actual character as a human being...until now.

"Humility leads to strength and not to weakness. It is the highest form of self-respect to admit mistakes and to make amends for them." –Jay McCloy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #119)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:27 PM

120. If I'm Wrong

......I apologize.

I have neither the time or the inclination to go through dozens or hundreds of post.

Question my character all you want....I do and that's not a bad thing as your quote points out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #72)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 10:24 AM

82. How about you tell us.

"So why did the gun lobby amend the last DC voting rights bill?"

How about you tell us why the DC delegate shelved the bill.

And whether you agree with the choice to shelve it, and why, before you complain any further.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #82)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 10:49 AM

87. Are We Back To DC?

Read all posts in this board.

Covered territory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #72)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:41 PM

125. Because they thought it would pass and they could get their rider passed too. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #125)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:46 PM

128. At the expense

.....of the voting rights of half a million voters 90% of whom are Democrats.

Nice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #128)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 01:36 AM

172. Democrats scuttled the bill.

And yet you blame the gun lobby.


Why is that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #70)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:32 AM

74. That's fucking rich.

No, the same government you want to save you from the guns amended that.

Weeping Jesus.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Callisto32 (Reply #74)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:37 AM

75. Ok

You mean your government. Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #68)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 10:14 AM

79. That is, of course, not even close to what was stated.

 

Your continued dodging is noted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #9)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 06:59 PM

24. I have this feeling that it would not be easy

to rob oneshooter's place. I for one am tired with my culture accepting the amount of home break ins and invasions. It is not the victims fault if someone steals their property. Stealing as lifestyle has been abetted by the state. Fuck that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to era veteran (Reply #24)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 07:07 PM

26. I Wouldn't Bet Your Life or His on It

...and of coutses it's not his or any victims fault if robbed or assaulted.

I for one am tired of a violent culture that accepts the notion someone wanting or needing 200 guns is acceptable risk for the larger community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #26)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 07:35 PM

30. How do you feel about a culture that glorifies home invaders and thugs and hates their victims?

 

I'm seeing way too much of that shit nowadays.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortran (Reply #30)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 07:38 PM

32. Oppose That Too

And I suspect the two are related and feed off each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #32)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 07:40 PM

34. Schizophrenia has a way of doing that.

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortran (Reply #34)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 07:42 PM

36. Yea

...well now you just digress from civil discourse to just being rude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortran (Reply #34)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 10:27 AM

83. I sounds to me that it is more like a case of hoplophobia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortran (Reply #30)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:43 PM

144. Give an Example

.....that doesn't involve guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #26)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:32 PM

139. How many hands does this 'someone' have?

If it's more than 2, then he MIGHT present more of a hypothetical risk than a person who only has two guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #139)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:41 PM

143. Good to Know

....so let's be clear....how many guns can one person shoot at a time .... and I'm not talking Matrix reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #143)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 11:31 AM

178. Usually one, but some platforms allow for firing one in each hand.

Pistols would be an example. Reloading quickly becomes confusing, and accuracy suffers when you don't grip a firearm with both hands, but it can be done.

So, aside from potential theft, which is an issue if you have one or one hundred guns, how is having an arsenal really all that dangerous?

If you can only fire so many at once... well. Seems like it's not a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #9)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 08:03 PM

43. And I would guess that you would be among the first to gang on me if it happened.

I won't say it won't happen, but then again they break into bank vaults.

So what do you believe should be the limits of firearms ownership. And how would you enforce it?

As a resident of Texas the laws that effect my ownership of firearms is mainly local, what would you do about that?

How does my ownership of firearms in Texas effect you in Washington DC?

Answers, if you please.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #43)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 08:25 PM

53. Hope Not

I hope it doesn't happen as I'm sure you do as well but the fact is, as you acknowledge, it could.

My opinion on what gun regulations should be in place are complex (despite what some may think) and I would like to think can be changed. I don't have the answer to your question but I think gun violence is epidemic in this country and I would welcome an alternative solution to the notion we need more guns.

Unfortunately, Texas and Virginia are the source for most illegal guns used in violent crimes in DC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #53)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:45 PM

112. "Unfortunately, Texas and Virginia are the source for most illegal guns used in violent crimes in DC

 

Really? Got a source for that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #112)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:03 PM

116. Amnesty Day

Next time DC has a gun amnesty day, I 'll forward you the results of where the illegal guns came from. In DC, it's ALWAYS the same: Texas and Virginia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 06:59 PM

23. Remember Brady II? It would have established the need for an "arsenal license"

 

if you wished to own more than 20 guns or 1,000 rounds of ammunition.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s103-1878&tab=summary

There are those on this board who advocate laws even more restrictive than that...

As for your collection, I'll just have to do the best I can to try to catch up! I'll be going to the Tulsa, OK gun show next month (largest in the world!), so I should be able to make a good start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #23)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 08:05 PM

46. Haven't even touched the ammo yet. Thats a whole nother question! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #7)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:33 PM

122. Not Sure

...but buying 30 guns at a time is not an arms collector....it's an arms dealer.

And no one needs 200 guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #122)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:18 PM

133. You need to work on your reading comrehension.

And not let your hopolaphobia get in the way. I just bought a new 700lb fireproof gun safe. The collection is getting crowded and I require more secure storage area. I will, and have, moved 12 longarms and 10 handguns into the new safe. I just today got it moved into place and bolted down, quite a job for 3 people!
I have bought as many as 20 firearms at a garage sale( divorce sale acually) and , after getting them checked and cleared by the local LE, used many of them as trade goods to better my collection.
Nothing illegal at all.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #133)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:27 PM

135. Wow


...a 700 pound safe? Really?

And you moved 22 arms into it?

I'm sure someone takes comfort in knowing the other 200+ are ......shall we say......not as secure?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #135)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:45 PM

146. All my arms safes weigh between 650 and 700lbs EMPTY, and are fireproof to 1600deg for 30 min.

All are bolted to the floor with 4ea 1/2" bolts and bolted to the filled concrete block wall with 2 more.
My arme are as secure as I can make them, If you hace a problem with that it is not my concern.
Your hopolaphobia is showing again. Please try to control it.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #146)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:47 PM

147. On Behalf of the Memories

....of those killed from stolen guns ......thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #147)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:54 PM

149. I have never, in over 40 years of collecting, had a firearm stolen.

Now about that apology for the uninformed, snarky, ignorant reply you gave the last time.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #149)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:59 PM

150. Nah

....my response was sincere.

Too bad you cannot see that.

The presumption that ALL gun owners secure their guns in the same manner is not in concert with reality or the story in pretty much any newspaper any day of the week.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #150)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 10:15 PM

170. So this reply was sincere..................

"I'm sure someone takes comfort in knowing the other 200+ are ......shall we say......not as secure?"

And not snarky?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #170)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 11:11 PM

171. See that Question Mark?

The one at the end of the quote.

You said they were.

I thanked you.

You took offense.

Ok.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #6)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 06:08 PM

10. Tell me how much political speech is sufficient to meet your needs?

Tell me that, and you'll know how many guns I deem it necessary for me to own...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 06:10 PM

11. Guns Seek to Squelch Political Speech

How many politicians have been shot or killed in your lifetime?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #11)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 06:23 PM

17. Animism? Really? Guns don't do actually do anything unless some human operates them.

I think your beef ought to be taken up with the assassins (and would-be assasins), and not their tools...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #17)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 06:32 PM

21. RIGHT

I forgot.....guns don't kill people.....but heh.....at least we know you don't think guns are used to squelch political speech reality not withstanding. Their 'tools' are the same as your toys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #10)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:38 PM

123. Is That The Only Speech?

I believe in restrictions on campaign donations as political speech.

Ready for your restrictions on gun ownership?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #6)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 06:15 PM

13. Once again you are demonstrating one of the key parts...

 

...of the failure that is the anti-gun side. Need. I can own as many as I want and if I want several rifles, shotguns, and handguns for hunting, target shooting, and self-defence then I will. Owning more guns does not increase the chances for theft, that is absolutely baseless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #13)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 06:22 PM

16. Not the Chance for Theft

Last edited Sat Feb 25, 2012, 07:15 PM - Edit history (1)

.....just the chance for more guns being stolen.

Actually, I change my mind. Ir DOES increase the chance of theft if the theives are looking for guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #16)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 08:46 PM

57. So if you are the victim you are also at fault?

Someone stealing is ok, someone owning bad?
Then there is that pesky 2nd Amendment thing. I will support and would fight for your right to exercise your 1st Amendment rights to criticize others that believe in their 2nd Amendment rights. This was the national covenant we were born under. 236 years same government, a good formula and mix that Constitution of ours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to era veteran (Reply #57)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 09:43 PM

59. Restrictions

No to the questions.

There are and should be restrictions on both Amendments.

No yelling fire in crowded theaters.

No hunting without a hunting license during hunting season.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #59)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 10:17 AM

80. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

 

Your continued dodging is noted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #80)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 10:55 AM

88. Read my Post Again

What part of my stating NO to your questions is dodging?

Every Bill of Rights is restricted by Court interpretation.

I disagree with yours. That's not dodging. That's a fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #13)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:41 PM

124. According to You

Ever heard why Concord was so important during the American revolution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 09:59 AM

78. Answer the questions posed....

 

and I'll consider addressing your dodge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #78)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 12:25 PM

91. What Question is that?

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #91)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:14 PM

99. Don't flatter yourself thinking you're being clever.

 

We are quite used to your kind in here.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #99)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:23 PM

103. Whatever

It was an honest question......but heh wrap yourself in your personal dislike of me. I couldn't possibly be flattered by anything you have to say about or to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #103)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:29 PM

107. "Personal dislike"? Hardly.

 

All I know about you is that you are a Pro-gun-restrictionist and use a debate tactic on one internet board that is well known and will not win you any prizes.

You simply aren't important enough to me in any way to actually have any feelings about you. Have a good day with your narcissism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #107)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:59 PM

130. Of Course

.....I'm not that important to you.

No doubt why you spend so much time responding to my posts.

Do tell what that 'debate tactic' you think I employ......oh and then let's do return to a debate about guns.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:30 PM

121. In America we don't have a Dep't of Needs.

I don't have to justify my guns on the basis of your idea of my "needs". All I have to do is have the money and the want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #121)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:43 PM

127. Yea Yea Yea

....and everyone wants your guns....as you do.

Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #127)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:01 PM

131. You ran away from the point.

I don't have to justify my purchases based on needs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #131)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:04 PM

132. No

....and neither do I on why I think it's lawful to restrict the number of guns you buy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #132)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 07:52 PM

153. On the contrary, you do have to justify a restriction.

 

That's how things work in a place where freedom and liberty are the default positions. You have to justify the need for the restriction and, if you want to keep it, prove that it has been effective.

Noteably, you have completely failed to do any of that, even though asked repeatedly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #153)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:01 PM

154. What a Surprise

I am certain I will never do that to your satisfaction assuming what you say is true (it's not).

So......continue feeling good about your wet paper bag intellectual superiority.

I'll make the argument to those with open minds.....listen if you want, chime in every so often but save yourself for the really good rebuttal points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 10:50 PM

61. The one gun (pistol) rule doesn't apply to me.

What are they going to do to prevent me from buying two or more? Why don't they care about me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 10:21 AM

81. Since the conversation got so thouroughly derailed, I'll repose the relevent questions:

 

So, how did this law have anything to do with VT?

Can anyone prove that it reduces crime? I'm betting.... not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #81)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 12:23 PM

89. Easy

People are sick and tired of the negative consequences of a gun culture whose response to gun violence and killings is always 'so what' or 'who cares?' They often fail to recognize the problem, offer no alternatives or solutions and then act surprised at the anti-gun backlash until things settle down and it happens again.

No Virginia Tech student (or anyone) has a need for more than one gun a month.

Will it solve anything? Who knows but I've heard not one alternative solution to helping prevent what happened on the Tech campus. Not one. Unlike some, the families of the dead do care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #89)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 12:28 PM

92. Let Me Add

How does eliminating the law benefit anyone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #89)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:17 PM

100. "No Virginia Tech student (or anyone) has a need for more than one gun a month."

 

Asserting something does not make it true, and Constitutional Rights are not predicated on some non-defined quality of "need".

You have not yet proved anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #100)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:26 PM

105. Ok

Prove that having more guns per capita has reduced our prison population in proportion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #105)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:50 PM

163. He has no duty to prove something that he has not asserted.

See how that works?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #163)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:53 PM

164. Coming from Someone

....who is speaking for others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #164)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 07:16 AM

173. He's right. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #100)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:41 PM

110. Interesting

Of everything you could have responded to in my post, you offered not one solution on how to prevent what happened at Virginia Tech. Not one.

Tell me, is there a strategic advantage to prevent crime, protect oneself or defend others by being restricted to buying one gun a month? Tell me how many guns do shoot at a time when you protect yourself or others?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #110)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 09:04 PM

165. Why should he offer anything? Cho *obeyed* the one gun a month law, so it prevented nothing.

Your absolute refusal to acknowledge that fact, in combination with your determined attempts to threadjack over the subject of DC voting rights leads me to state for the record that your presence in this thread has been nothing less than one long attempt at disruption.

Alert away, if you feel you must. I stand by my statement.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #165)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 09:12 PM

167. He Doesn't Have To

But the question remains.

As for your question, you'll have to go through the thread where I acknowledge that I don't know if it's done any good but I do know it's done no harm and is constitutionally permissible.

Look .... DU has an IGNORE feature. If you don't like me, my posts or my positions, use it. I hold no malice toward you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #89)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:33 PM

140. Virgina state's mental health reporting laws were corrected after that incident.

So, since you didn't hear about it, I guess you don't read the news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #140)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:44 PM

145. Corrected?

How?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #145)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 11:52 AM

180. VA joined 12 other states (like Washington) in authorizing

reporting of mental health records to NICS. Of 32 other states, some only require reporting to in-state databases for local checks, which is great, but someone could be trying to buy a gun after moving to another state, and only the federal NICS would catch it.

"Virginia: In Virginia, the chief law enforcment officer of a county or city must ensure that any acquittal by reason of insanity is reported to the Department of State Police (DSP). In addition, court clerks are required to certify and forward a copy of all court orders involving involuntary commitment of an individual, or containing a finding that an individual is "incapacitated", to DSP. DSP is then authorized to forward this information to the FBI for inclusion in the NICS database. In response to the Virginia Tech tragedy, Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine issues an Executive Order (50) on April 30, 2007 directing all executive branch employees and law enforcement to consider court-ordered outpaitent treatment as involuntary admission to a mental health facility, and to report it to the State Police, and NICS"

Virginia legislature has clarified what they mean by 'incapacitated', etc. I think Washington State's laws are a bit clearer, and we have fewer paitent confidentiality laws that might prevent a report getting to NICS by way of privacy laws. Prohibiting firearms possession is the ONLY purpose this state allows to violate paitent privacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 10:34 AM

84. Shouldn't the title read "Parent of brady shill..."?

And lets not forget that last paragraph:


"The families of Virginia Tech students, as well as survivors of the 2007 campus massacre, have been active in Virginia and elsewhere to limit the sale of guns."


Limit the sale of guns to people who shouldn't have them? No.

Limit the sale of guns to criminals? No.

Limit the sale of guns to those who are violent? No.

"Limit the sale of guns".

Yup.

That about says it all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #84)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 12:24 PM

90. Citation Please

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #90)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:24 PM

104. It's the only part of the cited article that the OP did NOT quote. Fascinating, eh? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #104)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:28 PM

106. Makes Sense

....to you I'm sure.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #106)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:42 PM

111. Well that...

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.



...seems to be your usual m.o.



Always humorous when the Brady Group considers being called anti-gun a "mischaracterization" yet do everything possible to be precisely that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #111)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:53 PM

114. Brady Bunch?

The 'mischaracterization' is your false assumption about my affiliation with the 'Brady bunch.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #114)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:41 PM

126. Looks, sounds, smells like a duck...

 

...you know the rest...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #126)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:48 PM

129. Yea

....got it....another rude insult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #90)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 09:05 PM

166. LOL

Colin Goddard is the Assistant Director of Federal Legislation for the Brady Campaign.

Andrew Goddard is the President of the Richmond, VA Chapter of the Million Mom March.



Google it if you really need to cite it for yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #90)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 07:18 AM

174. Mirror, mirror.... n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread