We Remember The Magic Café We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The press and the Gifford shooting (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9..16..22..28..34..40~41~42 [Next]
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
Bush was missinformed some kids won't be born....to be raised in fanatical homes.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
This thread has gone far from its original topic, which is fine with me. Let me add a couple of fairly random reactions:

1) Gaston Glock is a brilliant man. The story of how he bested the biggest and most experienced manufacturers in the personal weapons field should inspire all inventors and entrepreneurs.

2) The phrase "well regulated militia" in the Second Amendment, in the context of XVIIIth century usage, means "proficient," not under the kinds of controls leftists imagine. Think of Bach's "well regulated" Church music. The point of the preamble is, since we don't intend to have a standing army, we will need to rely on the citizens, called out as a militia, to defend our country; therefore, the citizens had better be proficient at arms, so we will do nothing to restrict their God-given right to defend themselves by keeping and bearing arms.

3) The National-Socialists were socialists. I wrote several long discussions of this fact in another thread, that was deleted from this forum. So I will just leave it at that. For further information, anyone with an interest in learning the truth about this fact, can look here or here.

4)Anyone who is interested in the reality of inflammatory political rhetoric and the violence to which it leads should look here and here.

5) With respect to Governor Palin's use of the phrase "blood label" Rabbi Shmuley Boteach had this to say in the Wall Street Journal:

Quote:
Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder.

The abominable element of the blood libel is not that it was used to accuse Jews, but that it was used to accuse innocent Jews—their innocence, rather than their Jewishness, being the operative point. Had the Jews been guilty of any of these heinous acts, the charge would not have been a libel.

Jews did not kill Jesus. As the Roman historian Tacitus makes clear, he was murdered by Pontius Pilate, whose reign of terror in ancient Judea was so excessive, even by Roman standards, that (according to the Roman-Jewish chronicler Josephus) Rome recalled him in the year 36 due to his sadistic practices. King Herod Agrippa I, writing to the Emperor Caligula, noted Pilate's "acts of violence, plunderings . . . and continual murder of persons untried and uncondemned, and his never-ending, endless, and unbelievable cruelties, gratuitous and most grievous inhumanity."

Murder is humanity's most severe sin, and it is trivialized when an innocent party is accused of the crime—especially when that party is a collective too numerous to be defended individually. If Jews have learned anything in their long history, it is that a false indictment of murder against any group threatens every group. As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Indeed, the belief that the concept of blood libel applies only to Jews is itself a form of reverse discrimination that should be dismissed.

Judaism rejects the idea of collective responsibility for murder, as the Hebrew Bible condemns accusations of collective guilt against Jew and non-Jew alike. "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him" (Ezekiel 18).

How unfortunate that some have chosen to compound a national tragedy by politicizing the murder of six innocent lives and the attempted assassination of a congresswoman.

To be sure, America should embrace civil political discourse for its own sake, and no political faction should engage in demonizing rhetoric. But promoting this high principle by simultaneously violating it and engaging in a blood libel against innocent parties is both irresponsible and immoral.


6) Even the reliably leftist New York Times columnist, Charles Blow, wrote in his weekly column yesterday, that the left had jumped the shark on the issue of whether political rhetoric had motivated the shooter:

Quote:
Within hours of the shooting, there was a full-fledged witch hunt to link the shooter to the right.

“I saw Goody Proctor with the devil! Oh, I mean Jared Lee Loughner! Yes him. With the devil!”

The only problem is that there was no evidence then, and even now, that overheated rhetoric from the right had anything to do with the shooting. (In fact, a couple of people who said they knew him have described him as either apolitical or “quite liberal.”) The picture emerging is of a sad and lonely soul slowly, and publicly, slipping into insanity.

I have written about violent rhetoric before, and I’m convinced that it’s poisonous to our politics, that the preponderance of it comes from the right, and that it has the potential to manifest in massacres like the one in Tucson.

But I also know that potential, possibility and even plausibility are not proof.

The American people know it, too. According to a USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday, 42 percent of those asked said that political rhetoric was not a factor at all in the shooting, 22 percent said that it was a minor factor and 20 percent said that it was a major factor. Furthermore, most agreed that focusing on conservative rhetoric as a link in the shooting was “not a legitimate point but mostly an attempt to use the tragedy to make conservatives look bad.” And nearly an equal number of people said that Republicans, the Tea Party and Democrats had all “gone too far in using inflammatory language” to criticize their opponents.

Great. So the left overreacts and overreaches and it only accomplishes two things: fostering sympathy for its opponents and nurturing a false equivalence within the body politic. Well done, Democrats.

Now we’ve settled into the by-any-means-necessary argument: anything that gets us to focus on the rhetoric and tamp it down is a good thing. But a wrong in the service of righteousness is no less wrong, no less corrosive, no less a menace to the very righteousness it’s meant to support.

You can’t claim the higher ground in a pit of quicksand.

Concocting connections to advance an argument actually weakens it. The argument for tonal moderation has been done a tremendous disservice by those who sought to score political points in the absence of proof.


7) The emphasis on political motivation is entirely wrong. The shooter is a schizophrenic who was motivated by his own madness, not anybody's political rhetoric. As quoted in the Washington Post, here'......d to say:

Quote:
Although the percentage of schizophrenics who commit violent crimes is small, their violence tends to be more "bizarre, unpredictable and with a focus often on celebrities," according to Marder. That is because of the nature of the disease. Schizophrenics are sometimes plagued by "self-referential thinking," which converts ordinary events or experiences into episodes with personalized, "special meaning." For a schizophrenic, the TV is not merely on. The TV is speaking to him. This makes the illness incredibly difficult for "tormented" family members who are trying to help the loved one, only to see interactions converted into diabolical threats and dangers in the patient's mind.

In that regard, an interaction with a politician or celebrity can set a schizophrenic on "a mission." Marder declined to speak on the Loughner case specifically. When I gave a hypothetical, "Would an interaction with a famous figure who gives the schizophrenic a disappointing response be a trigger for violence?" He answered without hesitation, "yes."


There's more in that interview that's worth reading, but the point is that we don't need more laws to control guns, we need to control schizophrenics who are issuing death threats and frightening the people around them, as the Tucson shooter was, for months before this final crime.

Rather than deal with the real problem people who cause the problems, we have a tendency to try to create blanket prescriptions that cover anyone. A similar thing happens with airline security in the United States. Rather than focus on actually identifying and stopping terrorists, we focus on screening everyone for possible weapons. The terrorists of course just develop new weapons . . . and we keep trying to prevent the most recent previous attack . . . unless eventually an unarmed terrorist or group of terrorists will cause some mischief, and then finally we may focus on identifying the people who are going to be problems.

Of course, even then, we won't "jump to conlusions." As Byron York wrote:

Quote:
On November 5, 2009, Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire at a troop readiness center in Ft. Hood, Texas, killing 13 people. Within hours of the killings, the world knew that Hasan reportedly shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before he began shooting, visited websites associated with Islamist violence, wrote Internet postings justifying Muslim suicide bombings, considered U.S. forces his enemy, opposed American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars on Islam, and told a neighbor shortly before the shootings that he was going "to do good work for God." There was ample evidence, in other words, that the Ft. Hood attack was an act of Islamist violence.

Nevertheless, public officials, journalists, and commentators were quick to caution that the public should not "jump to conclusions" about Hasan's motive. CNN, in particular, became a forum for repeated warnings that the subject should be discussed with particular care.

"The important thing is for everyone not to jump to conclusions," said retired Gen. Wesley Clark on CNN the night of the shootings.

"We cannot jump to conclusions," said CNN's Jane Velez-Mitchell that same evening. "We have to make sure that we do not jump to any conclusions whatsoever."

"I'm on Pentagon chat room," said former CIA operative Robert Baer on CNN, also the night of the shooting. "Right now, there's messages going back and forth, saying do not jump to the conclusion this had anything to do with Islam."

The next day, President Obama underscored the rapidly-forming conventional wisdom when he told the country, "I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts." In the days that followed, CNN jouralists and guests repeatedly echoed the president's remarks.

"We can't jump to conclusions," Army Gen. George Casey said on CNN November 8. The next day, political analyst Mark Halperin urged a "transparent" investigation into the shootings "so the American people don't jump to conclusions." And when Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra, then the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, suggested that the Ft. Hood attack was terrorism, CNN's John Roberts was quick to intervene. "Now, President Obama has asked people to be very cautious here and to not jump to conclusions," Roberts said to Hoekstra. "By saying that you believe this is an act of terror, are you jumping to a conclusion?"

Fast forward a little more than a year, to January 8, 2011. In Tucson, Arizona, a 22 year-old man named Jared Lee Loughner opened fire at a political event, gravely wounding Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, killing a federal judge and five others, and wounding 18. In the hours after the attack, little was known about Loughner beyond some bizarre and largely incomprehensible YouTube postings that, if anything, suggested he was mentally ill. Yet the network that had shown such caution in discussing the Ft. Hood shootings openly discussed the possibility that Loughner was inspired to violence by…Sarah Palin. Although there is no evidence that Loughner was in any way influenced by Palin, CNN was filled with speculation about the former Alaska governor.

After reporting that Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik had condemned what Dupnik called "the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government," CNN's Wolf Blitzer turned to congressional reporter Jessica Yellin for analysis. The sheriff "singled out some of the political rhetoric, as you point out, in creating the environment that allowed this kind of instance to happen," Yellin told Blitzer. "Even though, as you point out, this suspect is not cooperating with investigators, so we don't know the motive. President Obama also delivered that message, saying it's partly the political rhetoric that led to this.* So that's why we want to bring up one of the themes that's burning up the social media right now. On Twitter and Facebook, there is a lot of talk, in particular, about Sarah Palin. As you might recall, back in March of last year, when the health care vote was coming to the floor of the House and this was all heating up, Palin tweeted out a message on Twitter saying 'common sense conservatives, don't retreat -- instead reload.' And she referred folks to her Facebook page. On that Facebook page was a list of Democratic members she was putting in crosshairs, and Gabrielle Giffords was one of those in the crosshairs."

Yellin noted that Palin had "posted a statement on Facebook saying that 'my sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and other victims of today's tragic shooting in Arizona. On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families and for peace and justice.'" Yellin continued: "And I should point out that Republican leaders in Washington have said that this is not a partisan issue, this is about violence, as have some tea party groups. But clearly this is a moment to talk about our political rhetoric."

"It certainly is," Blitzer agreed. "But the question is, is there any evidence that the suspected shooter in this particular case was a Sarah Palin fan, read Sarah Palin's website, was a member on Facebook, watched her tweets, or anything like that?"

"None at all," Yellin responded. "And there is no evidence that this was even inspired by rage over health care, broadly. So there is no overt connection between Sarah Palin, health care, and the [shootings]."


That's enough for now. Go read the articles I've linked, and join me back here for more judicious and thoughtful colloquy.

Woland
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
Not a Glock fan. They're ok, but not my favorite.
If you're talking strictly 9mm then give me a Browning Hi-Power any day.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20661 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
I always carried a Beretta. The frame fit my hand well. I have large hands, and I am left handed and it worked well 20 years ago.

If you have the money, the Sig Sauer P220 is a fantastic 45.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
According to the Chief of Police where I live, the problem with the Beretta is that the person facing you can actually grab the slide and pull it right off the pistol, leaving you with nothing but the receiver and magazine . . . that's why he got rid of them, and the policemen here now carry Glocks. For reliability, the Glock is hard to beat. It is an ingenious design.

Woland
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2011-01-16 17:41, Dannydoyle wrote:
If you have the money, the Sig Sauer P220 is a fantastic 45.


I love Sig Sauer. Didn't one of Browning's lead designers leave to work for them? I thought I heard that somewhere.
I like my 12 guage for home defense. I don't have to worry as much about aiming in the dark.
I once worked for a bail enforcement dude who reloaded his own pistol rounds using epoxy to reduce collateral damage.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5041 Posts

Profile of landmark
Woland--
1) Rather than hold up the manufacturers of death machines as models to emulate, how about celebrating those who work to save lives?

2) A guy in a bar with a gun knocking back a few brewskis is not part of a well-regulated militia. He cannot be proficient nor is he acting in an organized manner with others to defend the country.

3)The Nazis were not socialists. See here and here .

4) Right wing rhetoric and violence here and here .

5) This rabbi thinks Palin's words were inappropriate.

6) Are you forgetting about the right wingers who "jumped the shark" almost immediately and accused Loughner of being a product of the left wing , including our very own Carrie Sue?

7) Are you willing to contribute to health care for those who can't afford it, so that those with mental illness can get the proper treatment they need?
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20661 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
It occurs to me he has watched to many movies. I am not being critical here, but you are supposed to have FAR more distance than that. The move you speak of is a manuver that is far from instant and involves with one hand both pushing in a VERY small button, and throwing a lever and pulling the barrel.

"Can" it happen? I suppose. I have never heard of a story where it did that can be verrified. EVERY time I saw someone try to do it the result was dismal failure. Also it could not be done so fast as I can not have pulled the trigger. IF they can get the hand the the barrel that fast and you can't react, you don't really belong having one in the first place.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
This barrel grabbing technique sounds like a good one for Mythbusters.
Fiction-wise, it was used by Jet Li in "Lethal Weapon 4." Interesting that some of us were just talking about those movies elsewhere...
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
Oh come on guys, let us mellow out.

I think it is pretty much realized, except by those looking to point at some group or another, that the killings were the actions of a very disturbed guy. He may have clung to some extreme beliefs as well but that was just a manifestation of his mental problems. We are talking about a guy who posed in a thong with a gun....the party closest associated with this dude was in his head. He very well could have driven a car into the crowd and might then have killed more people, he just happened to have a gun and it went along with the whole blaze of glory thing he likely imagined. I would also think the dip didn't think he would be captured but be killed by the police. A character like this kid problem had extreme ideas but he would have developed his own anyway so you cannot blame anyone for his actions other than himself.

As for Sarah Palin using the term Blood Libel. It was a term that was the basis of anti semitic behavior going back centuries. Interestingly there are some modern people right here in the ol' USA that STILL believe Jews kill children. The term actually is older than that and I would think Palins usage was in reference to people using a lie involving violence to discredit a group, I would guess the Teaparty in this case. So while I can see it being offensive to the Jewish people I also see it as being very descriptive as for what she was implying.

The left blames the right, the right blames the left....the anarchist blames regulations.... just blame the guy who did it and put him away forever.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20661 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2011-01-16 18:23, critter wrote:
This barrel grabbing technique sounds like a good one for Mythbusters.
Fiction-wise, it was used by Jet Li in "Lethal Weapon 4." Interesting that some of us were just talking about those movies elsewhere...


Yea it was about as accurate as the first movie where all the cops just stand arround and let him fight the bad guy for pride LOL. Lethal Weapon movies are not the best places to fact check things.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
Did you know the coked up lesbian porn hot blonde who dropped off the building at the beginning of Lethal Weapon 1 was the same girl who played Kelly the innocent girlfrield of Woody in the last season of Cheers?
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On 2011-01-16 18:18, Dannydoyle wrote:
It occurs to me he has watched to many movies. I am not being critical here, but you are supposed to have FAR more distance than that. The move you speak of is a manuver that is far from instant and involves with one hand both pushing in a VERY small button, and throwing a lever and pulling the barrel.

"Can" it happen? I suppose. I have never heard of a story where it did that can be verrified. EVERY time I saw someone try to do it the result was dismal failure. Also it could not be done so fast as I can not have pulled the trigger. IF they can get the hand the the barrel that fast and you can't react, you don't really belong having one in the first place.

In Support Your Local Sheriff, Walter Brennan pulls a gun on James Garner, who sticks his finger in the end of the barrel. Garner ends up taking the gun from Brennan.

Brennan: If that gun had gone off it woulda' blowed up in my face.

Garner: Well, it wouldn't have done my finger a hell of a lot of good, either.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Well, landmark, to take your comments in reverse order:

7) I am all in favor of proper medical care for everybody, including the mentally ill. Are you willing to see schizophrenics who make death threats against sundry potential victims locked up?

6) A posting by Carrie Sue on The Magic Café hardly has the gravitas of the almost incessant attacks on conservatives that were carried on the major networks and the major newspapers in the country.

5) I'm not going to argue rabbinical authorities with you. All I was trying to do was to point out that from news reports, Jewish reactions to Governor Palin's comments were not univocal. Marvin Hier has a long history of attacking American conservatives in general.

4) I'm not impressed with the minor incidents you link to, as indicating a climate of right wing violence in this country. Violence from the left has been much more prevalent since the 1960s.

3) The fact that the National-Socialists attacked the communists and the social-democrats, as shown in Pastor Niemoller's famous apothegm, does not prove that the National-Socialists were not socialists. Those were internecine fights. The National-Socialist program was a straightforward socialist program, emphasizing national State control of the economy, and the subordination of the individual to the needs of "the people" in every way. The other article to which you link is a typical piece of communist propaganda, and includes the statement: "In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people -- after all, wasn't the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no." That is the typical answer communist sympathizers always give when you point out to them that, without exception, every communist government in the history of the world has turned its country into a hellhole. In fact, however, socialism has been tried at the national level again, and again, and again, and again, and the results are uniformly abysmal. This article to which you link, however does admit: "After the Nazis took power in 1933, they quickly established a highly controlled war economy under the direction of Dr. Hjalmar Schacht." In fact, the National-Socialist state employed a number of economic planners larger than the number employed by Stalin; of course, the German economy was bigger. When compared to the typical leftist's fantasy of what life under socialism would be like, National-Socialist Germany does not appear to be very "socialist." But when compared to the actual results of socialism and communism in other countries, National-Socialism fits right in.

2) Of course a guy pounding beers in a tavern is not a well-regulated militiaman. To be "well-regulated" he would have to engage in regular, serious, dedicated practice. That's the only way to achieve and maintain proficiency. (That being said, the courts have repeatedly decided that the preambles to various laws do not affect the actual practical meaning of those laws. Thus, the preamble to the Second Amendment does not change its specific instructions: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There are other time-honored and legitimate reasons for a gentleman to go armed.)

1) A pistol is not a death machine. It is a life machine. It is there to protect your life, your family's lives, and the lives of the innocent weak who would otherwise be mercilessly preyed upon by evil men. I know you will probably never see it that way, but that's the way it is. I think it is fitting and proper to celebrate the ingenuity of Gaston Glock, the rigorous technical work of Nikolai Makarov, and the sheer technological genius of John Moses Browning.

Woland
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
A few years ago in San Jose a coworker of mine was about to get raided in a drug bust (note, if you make $11.00 an hour buying a house and brand new corvette may be noticed). Interestingly he lived on the same street our very own Mickey Painless was raised on. The police were at a mini mart type place at the end of the street (on Pearl Ave Mickey) with the kid who was the insider informant and a genius decided he would go up and rob the two plainclothed police. One officer stuck his finger in the barrel, the guy shot, and the result was the finger poker officer lost his finger and the other officer shot and killed the robber and the bust still went down. My coworker was released because it turned out the informant was 17 and thus couldn't be part of the whole thing. So...a finger can stop yourself from getting killed but it will hurt. I do realize the bullet may have gone right through the finger, they didn't go into that.
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
Finger in the barrel was done one Mythbusters. It was busted.
I would like to see the grabby thing on there though. I think that it is highly improbable.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
With respect to how the press should handle the shooter's story, a forensic psychiatrist made some interesting observations on ABC's Nightline:

Quote:
"If we feel that civility in public discourse is going to take away mass shootings we are mistaken," said Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist at New York University and an ABC News consultant. "Because the one common thread in mass shooting is, what does the shooter get out of it? And the shooter recognizes that if you assassinate a political figure you will be notorious. I think John Lennon had more to do with this than Sarah Palin," said Welner.

"The available information does not answer the question of whether he is alienated and paranoid as a social deviant, or as a person descending into schizophrenia,” noted Dr. Welner. “But his representations about Congresswoman Giffords show more inspiration from the murderer of John Lennon (who likewise deemed his victim fake) and Robert DeNiro’s shaved would-be assassin in Taxi Driver (who almost killed a politician) than from scapegoats like Sarah Palin. Mass shooting and assassination are both notoriety-seeking crimes, and his actions definitely reflect planning and an anticipation of public discussion. It is a crime that so reflects pop culture and a copy cat influence,” he added.

“It is vital at this point to focus discussion not on his agenda but on the heroism of those who saved lives and the utter meaninglessness and sadness of the deaths of those he murdered. I will mention his name as little as possible and would urge the responsible press to follow suit. Let others not identify with the attention he is gaining from nothing more than his capacity to ruin life around him.” As for the nature of the attack, Dr. Welner counseled, “my professional experience has taught me that you learn most by studying the initial point of attack. Congresswoman Giffords is a political figure, but above all she was a celebrity accessible to him. Her being female may also prove to be relevant in a crime that is so often found in sexually inept men who blame everyone else for their failure in manhood and choose spectacle destruction as a deviant outlet.


You can see the interview at the link.

Woland
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Sigh. Woland- unless you have a tendancy to go for hikes in areas frequented by mountain lions or rattlesnakes, there is only one purpose for a handgun: to kill another person.

"No!" you may argue, "Self-defense!" What is self defense? Shooting someone who is threatening you- an act that will likely kill them.

I have no problem with people owning guns- but they need to be honest with themselves as to exactly what they own that gun for.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
That cop proved putting in a finger will cost you at least a finger.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Ask yourself this question.

Who can buy a gun?

Answer:

You have to be 18 or older to purchase a rifle or shotgun;
You have to be 21 or older to purchase a handgun;
You must buy your gun from a federally-licensed dealer in your state;
You must submit to a background check that the dealer will arrange, using an FBI database

Did you read the fourth statement? If not before you go any further read it.

You must submit to a background check that the dealer will arrange, using an FBI database.

So now if you are on file as a felon or have had an arrest for any serious crime or mentally incompetent and are filed with the FBI you are not going to be permitted to purchase a gun. Simple enough and very logical.

So why are some of these people not on the FBI's radar? Can a doctor report a mentally incompetent to the FBI or is the HIPA law preventing it? Do the local police and sheriff's dept report an individual if said individual has been reported to be a threat to someone or has madae terrorist threats to individuals? Do they even wriite him up locally?

Now if you are going to say that he got it illegally well that is another matter isn't it? Only shows that if criminals want guns they can get them and no amount of laws will prevent it. The laws will only prevent the law abiding citizen from pocessing a gun because they do not want to break the law. The criminal does not care about the law...or did you forget he is a criminal? Criminals break laws. Laws mean nothing to them. Their busniess is breaking laws. Go figure.

So I guess the answer is to pass more laws that the criminal will ignore while punishing the law abiding citizen. Does that make sense to you?
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The press and the Gifford shooting (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9..16..22..28..34..40~41~42 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.41 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL