[HTML1]
Gun control measures might very well have identified Mr. Holmes as an unfit person. Proper laws about multiple sales or 100-round magazines might very well have stopped him before he acted.
What you guys fear is that your personal precious rights might be interfered with. You are so concerned with that that you would rather have guys like Holmes and Loughner buying guns legally.
Shame on all of you.
Maybe or maybe not. People like him always find a way. He could have stolen guns from law enforcement, locked the doors and set the building on fire, drove his car through the crowd after the show let out, etc. The NFA didn’t stop him from getting the gas grenades.
+1
Mike, I don’t know how anything you’re calling for would help, unless “Big Brother” was watching all the time – and we know that’s not gonna happen. Laws are already in place to keep the mentally deranged from purchasing firearms. If they let him buy the stuff then they would only show up at his door if they still had questions just ask to see if he still possessed said items. Are you calling for a specific demographic of the US, that has done nothing wrong, to have their rights infringed upon? That sounds like segregation to me…
Found “a way?” Set the building on fire? The guy was a wack job with extensive explosive and demolition experience. He seems to have manufactured any number of explosive devises and rigged an entire room to detonate if any of dozens of trip wires were set off.
The guy could just as easily have brought in a massive duffel bag of PETN or whatever else he was going to cook up and blown the building up. People who are set on killing tons of people can’t be reasoned with, they need to be dealt with forcibly and the theater’s “Gun Free Zone” policy ensured that possibility would never come to pass.
Mike and his anti self-defense cohorts will always just blindly blather on, refusing to deal with their underlying assumption that criminals and psychopaths will suddenly obey a new gun law.
We cannot be assured of disarming 100% of the nuts and wicked souls. We can be assured of creating a substantial likelihood that someone will happen to be armed in a setting such as this and able to respond with force. Florida, for instance, has concealed carry licensees at about 1/20 0r 5% of the total population. Any randomly selected individual has a 95% probability of being unarmed, but in a group of 50 or more the probability is over 93% that at least one of them will be armed.
The more “selective” and restrictive you get in permitting criteria the less random you make the occurrence of weapons and therefore you REDUCE the actual likelihood of someone armed being around to deal with a lawless shooter. Arming a significant, though small percentage of the population is feasible and effective, and is occurring. 100% success rate in keeping dangerous things from crazies and evil people is not possible — and it only takes one.
Do the math.
Ummm, is there a point in there someplace?
nope. well, only that if circumstances relating to gun control were different, the circumstances related to this event might or might not be different. Technically, that is true. Even though it has no practical meaning.
Mike Keep dancing in the bloodshed. If guns were taken out of this he could have built a large bomb and set it off, he could have driven his car through the crowd waiting to get in, he could have paid admission and firebombed the theater. The depraved mind knows no lack of ways to commit their crime. To blame loose gun laws is highly idiotic. This is the act of a sick and twisted individual, much like a suicidal person the means is independent of the desire to cause harm.
It’s not so much blaming loose gun laws as it is facing the fact that tighter requirements would screen out some of the worst individuals. And the rest of you would not be affected.
Pop psychology myth alert! Ever watch Gattaca? If you let someone devise a method to screen you out for one thing, they’ll screen you out for all sorts of things. That ‘screen’ is all science fiction that makes for interesting movie plots but would be used to the same effect as the gene experiments devised by Hitler in Nazi Germany.
Maybe you are right. I don’t think you are. But the ones not screened out by your “common sense gun laws” would still abuse their 2A rights and kill people. Then you would want another level of “common sense gun laws.” Where would it stop?
The slipery slope to NO gun rights is the only place gun grabbers want it to go. You are either a liar like the rest of them and too chicken to admit it or you are mentally deficient.
Stop Wiggling and backtracking Mike. Ben Franklin “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” This story reeks of a undiagnosed schizophrenic break. 24 y/o old drops out of college a few months earlier and goes on this kind of rampage? 23 is for unknown reasons a very common age for onset of schizophrenia. No amount of screening would have prevented this. but you did not answer to the other possibly more damaging methods he might have chosen. do we ban cars? gasoline? house hold chemicals? Where does it stop mike? Where can Nanny government finally let go of our hands and let us walk on our own?
The screening would not have worked in this case, because this evil man is much smarter than the screeners. This guy studied human behavior and he would passed any of their silly tests with flying colors. So you’re wrong again.
Mike,
Gun ownership for me (and most other Americans) is an issue of Freedom, period. And Freedom will not tolerate infringement upon it’s self. There are NO ideas you or your type can come up with that had not been tried and failed all over the globe.
We are America and we are free.
Right, because a PhD student who’s broken no laws would TOTALLY have been blocked by your magic laws.
Oh, wait…
All right, let’s make it simple. If a guy buys bullet-proof shin guards on the internet he loses his gun rights. how’s that?
Oh now your grasping, so there is never a need for hard metal shin guards or light weight composite shin guards that might also stop or slow a bullet? I mean Its good to know that lumberjacks, and perhaps someone who uses a gas powered weed wacker should lose their gun rights because they do not want to accidently cut off their legs.
A simple fertilizer bomb would have been much more effective, death toll would have been 20 or 30 times what it is…. should we ban fertilizer? Or do a medical records check on all purchasers?
Yep. Mike is the typical gun hating liberal who wets his pants wishing for things like this to happen so that he can get on his high horse and dance in the blood of the victims.
“Gun control measures might very well have identified Mr. Holmes as an unfit person.”
What “gun control measures” might those be? He purchased all 4 weapons at retail establishments, filling out the required paperwork and passing an “instant background check” each time. So far, I’ve seen no information reported that would indicate he might ever be identified as an “unfit person”. That is, he’s not a felon, a mental defective, a drug addict, or subject to a domestic violence restraining order.
Even in California, with that state’s rather strict “gun control measures”, Holmes would’ve been able to acquire the same (or comparable) arms in the same time frame. In 40 days, he could’ve had two semi-auto pistols, a shotgun, and an AR-type rifle (the latter very slightly neutered for CA). The sole exception would be magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
How about if people who buy several guns in a short time are checked out? Would that ruin your life? How about checking out people who buy large amounts of ammo? If they’re legit, they’d have no problem. If they’re raging lunatics like this guy and so many others, maybe something could be done to stop them before they act.
Why would you oppose that? Sometimes I think you guys need to grow up and get over your resentment of authority. You just hate the idea of the police or the government having power over you. Well, guess what, so do I, so does almost everyone, but most of us realize it’s a small inconvenience to put up with in order to save lives.
There’s a term we used in my debate class: Slippery Slope. Once you begin something where does it end? With “checking out” people buying guns and ammo, who makes the judgment call? It is a path that most of us don’t want to travel down. It has nothing to do with authority.
Really? A simple check? So you would give up your 4th amendment rights so easily? Why bother with warrants at all, if you have committed no crime why should you care if the police search your person, house and effects. You have committed no crime and have nothing to worry about. It’s just a temporary inconvenience….right?
Until the shooting, where was the evidence of him being “a raging lunatic”? Every thing I have seen described him as an intelligent, shy, polite person.
Yes, I do hate the idea of the police or government having power over me. I am a free man. I know where government power always leads. Your government power caused the deaths of over 100 million people in the 20th century. What sane man would want the government to have any power over him?
I’m glad you live in another country mikey, where you allow other power hungry fools to run your entire life. Now here in the U.S.A. we believe in running our own lives, and we don’t need a bunch of no good COMMIES telling us how to live.
Agree Joe: Better to live in a country where 3.5% of GDP is in the hands of N’dragheta, a country where the Comorra and La Familia control another 5%, and the government is worse without Burlesconi, bunga bunga, than with him? 12 dead is 11 days on average in Chicago, which is also gun-control central. Perhaps Mikey dislikes the effect armed citizens have in decent districts where crime is stalled by the risk of getting shot. I note that Justified Homicides are up 2200% over the decade in Detroit. How is that going in Napoli? Laugh. Italy’s going down the tubes, Sicily has just received notice that Rome is taking control of it once again. The governor of Sicily has more employees in his Palermo offices than Downing Street, London has. Italy is in worse shape than Spain in terms of GNP growth-rate return on national debt. Give the US advice? The gravy train is about to end and your wife’s pension will lose 50% of its value. Good luck with that one.
Checked out for what? I don’t think anybody would have described this guy as a raging lunatic until he booby-trapped his own apartment and shot up a movie theatre.
It just goes to show you that for every problem, there is a simple solution which doesn’t work.
Why? Because there’s no reason for the Gestapo to harass people buying things they’re legally allowed to own.
Should the government be checking out anyone who buys or borrows a copy of Mein Kampf from the library? What about someone who picks up a copy of Karl Marx’s works? What about checking up on members of the Cult of Scientology?
Just because you don’t value your rights doesn’t mean everyone should live as a slave.
That’s the thing. You should not be legally allowed to own the guns and ammo and equipment that he had so easily accumulated, at least not without raising some suspicion. That’s not freedom.
Mike that’s the definition of freedom, If I want to collect pink power puff memorbelia then I am allowed, If I want to go super mall ninja and buy black tactical gear, I can do that too. Admit it you want a nice security blanket Police State.
MikeB, tell me how we are NOT checked out today? Tell me how you would have figure out this particular shooter?
He had no record, he was a Ph. D student, he had no history of mental history?
How would suggest we figure this out?
… the government having power over you … itâs a small inconvenience …
For some the solution to most problems is more government, more laws, etc. Since I probably can’t disabuse those folks of that belief rather let me challenge them to think outside the box.
Instead of trying to devise new laws so clever that criminals will actually obey them, rather devise new programs to train the ‘sheeple’ in practical things like situational awareness.
That should save many more lives than e.g. reducing the legal capacity of a magazine.
However this would empower the people, something that statist would resist because it enfeebles government. Better for them is to enfeeble the people which empowers government.
Everyone can do their own reductio ad absurdum of where an ever more and more empowered government might lead.
would you be opposed to being checked out and having a permit to get access to the internet? after all we have to insure that you’re not one of those predatory people we hear about in the news. how about a permit from the government to have a blog, after all you could foment rebellion on the internet. how do you stand on needing id to vote? restrict my rights and i’ll work overtime to restrict yours.
“You just hate the idea of the police or the government having power over you. “
You’re fucking right, I do.
I’ve never given anyone authority over me. I’ve ceded my sovereignty to no one, entered into no agreements, nor signed any contracts.
James, unless you live in a cave in the Idaho panhandle, you’re grossly exaggerating your autonomy. In any society of men, there’s give and take.
Says who? And why?
I didn’t agree to that. Iâve ceded my sovereignty to no one, entered into no agreements, nor signed any contracts.
Isn’t wearing a seat belt in the car an act of ceding your sovereignty? You sound fanatical enough to believe that. How about a helmet while riding a motorcycle, or stopping at red lights or any other of the hundreds of things that you do each day? How about the way you dress or the way you talk, the way you shave or don’t shave?
Face it, you’re a regular wuss when it comes to cooperating with the authorities, but you give us that tough talk here on the blog.
The problem lies with implementation. If they are legit, you ask. Whose standards? Who checks? What will be considered legitimate purchase of ammo, guns, or anything?
I recently purchased some 900 rounds of .223/5.56. What purposes? Well, aside from the fact that it’s nobody’s business, say the clerk asks me what for. If I’m this Holmes, will the answer be “It’s a fair cop gov’nor! I was planning on killing as many people as I could in a dark theater” or will he find out in advance what the “correct” answer(s) is/are?
Devil is in the details. To all involved in the debate, don’t just spout out one-liners. Work through your arguments to their practical application, much like legislators do (or should)
Let me ask you something Mike!!! I have purchased in the last 6 months the following firearms:
ATI FX Titan 1911
Auto Ordanance Commemorative 1911
Sarsa12 12ga shotgun
Heritage Rough Rider Civil War Commemorative .22 SA Revolvers(x3) 2 were gifts.
Mauser 1914 Pocket Pistol
Mosin Nagant 91/30
S&W Model67 .38Special
Now my question: Should I be held back or unduly gone over with a fine toothed government comb for purchasing all of these weapons because there might be a one in a million chance i might shoot someone??
A little of my background: Started shooting/hunting at age7.
Volunteered for Military se4rvice at 18.
Spent 15 yrs in the US Army. Airborne, Ranger School, LRSLeaders Course, Sniper School, Blackhawk Crew Chief/Maintenance Repairman.
Married, 4 kids, 5 grandkids, working man, taxpayer.
Volunteered so others in our great country could live in a truly free world.
Served in the European and Middle East Theaters 1983 – 1988 in West Germany. 1991 to 1993 in Kuwait, and Bahgdad. Buried 3 of my teammates in 15 yrs for people like you too be free to do and say as you pretty well please!!!
So should i be wrung out to dry because of my background, or just be allowed to abide by the current gun laws and left to live my life??
No amount of gun law changes and greater restrictions would have caught this guy. Sorry I know that is not what you want to hear but it is the truth!!!
And no I don’t have a problem with authority, just gross stupidity!!!
People who use tragedies such as this and so many others to forward their socialist agendas are no better than the criminals themselves!!!
Just my honest opinion!!!
“Should I be held back or unduly gone over with a fine toothed government comb for purchasing all of these weapons because there might be a one in a million chance i might shoot someone??”
First of all the chances are not a million to one. Secondly, no one said anything about a fine tooth comb or grilling you over the coals or any of that other exaggerated nonsense. I say you should receive a visit from the local authorities and be subjected to a few polite questions.
“Mark, may we come in?”
“Not without a warrant, Officer.”
End of polite questions.
Really? The chances that someone who accumulates tactical gear and weapons is NOT a mass shooter is not a million to one? You’re full of crap as usual. Although in away you’re correct. When one considers the fact that millions of people in the U.S. do exactly that, the odds are actually far slimmer. As usual your phony math makes no sense and underscores your dishonestly.
Hal, you’re deluding yourself if you think MILLIONS of people own the gear Holmes did.
mikeb,
“those that give up essential liberty to receive little or no temporary safety deserve neither” -Ben Franklin
There is no delusion on this end. Your assumption just underscores the fact that you are neither part of our culture nor do you understand the demographics. There are a TON of tactical junkies out there. Many have better armor and weapons than the police.
I think you’re getting a little wrapped around the axel on the whole ballistic shin guards thing. Shin guards and other accessories like that are more for scary looks and cell extraction than practicality. I’ll focus on body armor/tactical nylon instead. I f there are roughly 80,000,000 firearm owners in the US (anyone please feel free to provide a more accurate number) and only five percent of those are tactical gear junkies that’s 4,000,000 bubbas with body armor, tactical nylon, etc. Don’t believe me if you like but I personally know a bunch of guys with chest rigs and armor, non LE types. I have run into countless more than that at ranges across the country. The tactical nylon business is HUGE, and honestly I could see 2-4 million having propper chest rigs and armor.
But for the sake of argument let’s say it’s only 100,000. Your claim is that this is this is a pattern of violence that occurs more often than one individual per million. Can we go with 100 per million? So using 100,000 as an estimated number of these tactical junkies in existence shouldn’t we be looking at 10 of these heavily armed/armored mass shootings, not one? I mean just the fact that these types of shootings are so memorable highlights how rare they are: LA Bank Robbery, Columbine and now Aurora. Screening for those purchasing protective and tactical equipment is therefore not a reliable litmus test for detecting mass murderers.
“I say you should receive a visit from the local authorities and be subjected to a few polite questions.”
Why did I just picture the opening scene from Bladerunner?
How many rounds of ammunition is a “large amount”?
Is a guy that goes to his local sporting goods store every week to buy 200 rounds of ammo buying a large amount of ammo?
What about somebody that buys a thousand round case of ammo once a month?
What about somebody that buys a 5,000 round lot of ammo every 6 months?
Where would the law enforcement resources come from to check out these people? What questions would they ask to differentiate our grad student psycho from somebody that is taking a 2 day training class?
How many guns is “several guns”? And what is a “short time”?
Would somebody that bought 3 semi auto .22lr rifles in a two month period qualify? If not, what would?
I know that the equal voice idea is a popular thing, but this post is pointless. It should not have been allowed. There is not one fact or truth in this post, only what might have happened…and therefore by definition, might not. Its just an annoying, irresponsible, and pathetic attack. He seeks to (some how) make those in favor of individual rights and responsibilities responsible for another person’s decision.
Yall moderators are not responsible for mike’s opinion, but you choose to post it. I ask that you (mods) reconsider allowing similar baseless posts in the future (I will continue to visit the site either way). I ask Mike to try to bring more substance next time rather than trying to manipulate people with mere emotional and senseless attacks.
+1000 I agree wholeheartedly that this post should have been moderated into the wastebasket. We all know what MikeB302000, and none of us see any sense in it. FLAME DELETED
Maybe you guys need to frequent one of the real echo-chambers. There are plenty of them.
My point is a good one. Would stricter controls stop some of the lunatics like Holmes without interfering with the good guys?
But, some of you don’t like good questions like that.
No it wouldn’t stop them. If they’re determined, as Holmes was, there are many alternative (read illegal) methods to obtaining firearms and ammo. You cannot stop people like Holmes. All you can do is prepare yourself and others to deal with them.
Mike have you ever heard the expression give an inch take a mile.
If we let them restrict gun law a little bit now they will later come back and try and take more and more until we aren’t allowed to own guns any more. The government has proven itself time and time again that they just keep taking and taking and never give anything back.
because it is childish and ignores 100 other consequences of the kind of gun control you support. I dont like to wast my time examining fuzzy “what ifs” at the expense of what I already know.
I know that we cant legislate away crime (violent or otherwise). We can only legislate away our ability to protect ourselves from it (and legislate the consequences for after the fact).
It is foolish to think that you can sanitize the world from all the dangers of life and free will. It is arrogant to think that you can determine for us the “line” where we should trade our individual liberty for the common welfare. If you are wrong, I could (more responsibly) use your argument and say that the blood is on your hands for taking away my ability to protect myself. Hopefully, I will never get the opportunity to say “Shame on you” for preventing me from lawfully defending another’s life.
When in doubt, I will always side with liberty.
I have no problem with measures that would stop lunatics without interfering with sane, law-abiding citizens.
Also. wouldn’t it be great if there were a brand of ice cream that tasted great and also made you physically fit instead of fat? Wouldn’t it be great if you could buy a car that had 500hp and got 55 mpg for under $15,000?
The problem, in case you haven’t figured it out, is that nothing of the sort is in the offering. Coming up with such a thing is not trivial; much smarter people have been trying to come up with such things for generations. So, if you have some specific new ideas, I’m all ears. All ears, that is, except for one jaundiced eye.
Mike, I don’t see how putting such measures in place could possibly NOT effect law abiding citizens while actually stopping people like James Holmes. Holmes would have been smart enough to lie about any thoughts he may of had about harming people, or any conditions he may have suffered from such as depression, anxiety, uncontrollable rage, bed wetting and constant masturbation (just kidding). Even so, There are millions of Americans that are genuine “good guys” with great morals and values that suffer from depression and other mental issues that require treatment but are no threat to themselves or others. Do we ban these people from firearm ownership? I would hope not. The process of weeding out the James Holmes of the world out from the good guys would be very tricky, and I just don’t see how such a process could not effect every law abiding American who wants to legally keep and bear arms. Mike, what is it you think that the government could do with out effecting the good guys what so ever? because I am not seeing any real possibilities.
How? The man planned his attack. He built IED’s and boobie trapped his home. He purchased ballistic armor and probably $3000 worth of weapons and ammunition. The guys mind was made up. Put limits on the amount of ammo he could buy and we would have purchased what he could, waited then purchased more. Same thing on weapons purchases. His mind was made up. Only dumb luck on the part of LE could have stopped him.
how many stricter controls do you want on a freedom guarenteed in the bill of rights. waiting periods , limits on the number of pistols i can buy and i have to have a hsc for handgun purchases and give a thumbrint for each purchase. let’s apply those standards to the whole bor and watch you scream rape.
More page hits because of people refuting MikeB’s idiocy result in more ad views, which results in more revenue for TTAG. As with most things in life, it all comes down to money.
This.
In a similar vein, you might well one day be involved in a car accident that might very well kill someone.
Better to be safe than sorry: Your keys, please. Better to be selfless, right? All that nifty moral high ground and such?
I’ll gloss over the difference between a privilege and a constitutionally protected right, as I suspect the cognitive abilities in play won’t even get that far.
Mikey! Oh, I missed him. Always nice to start my day with a laugh.
As with any of mikey’s posts, this doesn’t even dignify a proper response – and frankly I don’t know why it warranted a blog post – but I’ll say…no, mikey, I’m not ashamed at all. Not the slightest bit. I have the utmost confidence in my stance, and no amount of emotional hand-wringing and irrational fear-mongering from your ilk will ever change that. Sorry if it hurts your tyrannical sensibilities knowing that there are many who won’t bow down to your whims.
When it comes to guns, the only shame I ever feel is knowing that I and people like you are the same species. I have no clue how you filth can stand looking at yourselves in the mirror.
Also, it’s pointless to argue with anyone who mockingly calls basic human rights “precious.” Why would we even try to get across the sanctity of the Constitution’s protection of natural rights to someone who has absolutely no understanding of exactly how precious they are? People like that are slaves at best, sociopaths in likelihood, and tyrants at worst.
The sad fact is that some people are born with the mental defects mikey has, and no amount of reasoning or morality will change it. And, unfortunately, they have access to the same “precious” rights that we have, like that double-edged sword, the 1st Amendment. Can’t wait til mikey says the wrong thing in the wrong country and the secret police haul him off to the gulag; I wonder how precious his rights will be then?
It’s not a basic human right any more than wanting to own a toaster for your english muffins. Therefore, I sarcastically refer to it as “precious,” meaning that you’re more concerned with it than avoiding the Holmes and Loughner situations. God forbid you’d be even slightly inconvenienced.
The defense of ones self, others and property is a basic human right.
Just because you don’t believe it doesn’t make it any less true.
I consider the right to protect myself and those I love precious. How could you not?
what about it mike? which rights are you willing to give up other than 2a. again, i did not shoot anybody in that theater. you trying to restrict my rights when i’ve done nothing puts you right up there with histories greats. stalin, mao, hitler.
jwm, what rights of yours would be restricted if multiple weapon purchases and extended drum magazine purchases got you a visit from the local authorities? None. If people like Holmes didn’t abuse the freedom he has we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But, unfortunately, this is the world we live in.
Mike, again you want nanny government to do it for you. And Holmes will pay for abusing his freedom. Colorado has the death penalty and It will likely apply with all he has done here.
Holmes didn’t make any multiple weapon purchases, he bought them over a period of months.
Just like he would if the laws were changed to your liking.
Yawn.
Yes our rights are precious, and no I am still not willing to sacrifice any for the sake of the greater good. Gun grabbers are ambulance chasers, who won’t let a tragedy go to waste.
People like you [Mike] disgust me. Five minutes after this horrific tragedy occurs you are pushing your agenda down our throats, is that the first thing you think of as soon as something like this happens? Oh boy now we can finnally get their guns! Sickening.
We can debate whether or not a CCL holder could have helped til we are blue in the face. But there is at least one undebatable fact here. The laws you so cherish that disarm CCL holders, didn’t give anyone a fighting chance in that theatre.
Shame on you!
this is just more”what if,” speculation but I agree with your point Mike. I would rather defend my innate right to self-defense with a firearm, even if it means that sometime a crazy person does a crazy thing, than surrender that right to someone else.
In the same way I defend our innate right to free speech even though some people say irresponsible things. đ
Gun control is based on the fallacious assumption that you can predict who will commit a crime before they commit it.
I think Philip Dick wrote a story about why that doesn’t wok…
Never let a perfectly good tragedy go to waste. It’s political capital, after all!
Well, there’s 15 seconds I can’t have back. Good to know mikeb enjoys losing rights.
Hey Mike I do not need to be talked down to by someone because I choose to own firearms …. Shame on me for what? If gun control works so well why is Chicago the murder capital of the USA? Stop with the knee-jerk reactionary bullshit…. When a psychopath/sociopath is hellbent on murder and mayhem does the vehicle of the crime really matter? What if he used poison gas, an incendiary device or a motor vehicle? The gun is the vehicle the psychopath is the problem…. shame on you for blaming a whole group of citizens because they choose to own firearms legally….
Please spare us the Chicago line.
Some of the lunatics that own guns could be identified and disarmed without interfering in your life one little bit. But you won’t have it. Why?
You are wrong in your assessment. Your logic is fouled. It will not stop where you say it will.
Take your pick.
I assure you the many restrictions we have in this city do interfere with your life, but dont seem to be helping us much. My two cents.
Some of the lunatics that own guns could be identified and disarmed without interfering in your life one little bit.
How about, oh, I dunno…providing some actual evidence to support your bullshit?
How about, uh, I don’t know, using your head and thinking about what I propose.
As usual TrollB, you lack any basis for your claims other than the fact that you’re a sniveling coward who thinks a “benevolent dictator” will save him.
No, I’m not that and I don’t think that.
Why are you so defensive when I suggest better restrictions on who can own guns? I’m really talking about slightly stricter standards which would not affect the responsible.
hmmm, still no evidence. totenglocke is right. usually when people jump on their stupid soapbox they at least have something to back them up.
Interestingly enough, mikeb has nothing. no evidence to support his “hypothesis”. From where I hail, that is called “talking out of your ass”.
Instead of bypassing “the Chicago line” why not address it? You’re so sure gun regulations work and being Chicago is the shining light of gun control you should jump on the Chicago narrative. Anyone supporting all these “reasonable” regulations the rest of the country isn’t saddled with should logically choose the most restricted city in the Union.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin
“What you guys fear is that your personal precious rights might be interfered with.”
Heck yes. My personal rights are precious. I am willing to die for those rights, and I honor those that have, so I don’t have to. Gun control isn’t the answer because it only affects the honest. If a “bad guy” wants to commit an atrocity like this one, gun laws would be mere bumps in the road. On the other hand, without restrictive gun laws, responsible people are able to protect themselves. Had one person had a gun in that theater, how the results COULD (not would) have been differed? How many lives could have been “spared”? Had those individuals’ RIGHTS not been infringed, what could have changed? My rights, and those of my neighbors, are worth fighting for.
Given the way he rigged up his apartment, not sure he really needed a gun to cause a massive incident like he did.
Sorry, not even airbags or backup cameras prevent every death. Sometimes stuff just happens. There is no 100% solutions — history has list of determined killers and not all of them killed with guns. Recall the cult with the cyanide cool-aide and the Racine gas in Japan. We just saw the needles in the sandwiches its just a matter of time before the poison the food supply.
Nothing would have stopped this guy and it will happen again regardless of any law. Look at France and their shooter or Sweden – My brother lives in China and they have whack jobs that have hacked up a crowd with swords, the difference is China does not make that info public.
This guy did everything legally – hey! It was even a gun free zone AND the police where already there working crowd control – how could this possibly happen?
It was a soft target, and this guy was smart enough to know that – legal gun owners if there were any, were prevented from bringing in arms but STILL did not stop the BG!
The most precious right is, of course, the right to life. The corollary right is the right to defend your life. Defending yourself is not limited to using your bare hands, any more than someone wishing to harm or kill you is limited in their method or weapon. For defensive purposes, the firearm seems to be a useful choice. Maybe Mikeb302000 knows of something more effective?
Shame on FLAME DELETED for reacting to a tragedy with hysterics and calls for rash actions aimed at stopping an infitesimal percentage of homicides.
FLAME DELETED
FLAME DELETED
To Professor X, I had attempted to ridicule his use of the word “infinitesimal.” No flame.
Shame on you mike, for using this tragedy as a political tool to advance your useless agendas. Somewhere on earth, a train or bus crashes, armed gangs attack defenseless civilians and many die. Yet if there’s no political points to be gained, there will not be as much widespread media coverage. (South African farm attacks as an example)
Also based on what little information is available, you’re making quite a few assumptions. Better to wait until the complete picture is presented before going about blaming others for the actions of a single deranged individual.
If I were to go to the same level as the anti-guns, then: Since the shooter purchased the guns quite recently, there’s almost a 0% chance of him being a “gun rights advocate”. Since the shooter is from California, where the majority is anti-gun, there is a higher chance of him being an anti-gun advocate. So: 75% chance the shooter is Anti-gun, 25% Neutral and 100% human trash.
FLAME DELETED
He built a destructive device in violation of federal law, so no, MORE laws won’t help. Well, maybe if they has gas control laws, he wouldn’t still be keeping a few government agencies outside of his apartment instead of inside where they want to be.
He shot people in direct violation of the law. Criminals don’t follow laws.
In order to be in favor of gun control you have to replace fact and logic with feelings and fantasy. Aren’t those defining characteristics of a mental illness? Mike, get some help for yourself.
“you have to replace fact and logic with feelings and fantasy. Arenât those defining characteristics of a mental illness?”
Guns aside, I know lots of um people in America who operate on those mental illness defining characteristics.
COMMENT ON TTAG’S POSTING POLICY (AND SUBSEQUENT COMMENTS ALONG THE SAME LINES) DELETED.
If you wish to comment on TTAG’s editorial stance or style, please send an email to [email protected]
Guess the +1 Millions stung a little huh?
Using this tragedy to peddle your ill-informed, snake oil opinions is nothing more than a pathetic and shameful attempt the influence the scared and gullible of our society.
Shame on you.
Sorry, Rabbi, influencing the scared and gullible of our society is what you do.
I support the 2A, so am I one of the scared and gullible? I mean, do you honestly believe that more restrictions will stop maniacs like this guy? You can pass all the legislation in the world and if a lunatic wants to kill others, he’ll find a way. But what you advocate does nothing to improve safety, all it does is disarm the general public. It leaves us defenseless against thugs like him. You call for sales restrictions, high cap mag bans. Why? Will the criminals follow those laws? They are effin criminals, of course they don’t care, they never have! But now if we pile on even more gun control, oh now they’ll all suddenly start obeying the law, right? What a joke.
I’m proud of the Rabbi for calling it as he sees it, and he’s right on target as usual. I can’t wait for Ralph to jump in on this.
Yeah, where’s Ralph?
So how come you’re only replying to some posts and not others? Did some people make too good of an argument against your case and now you have nothing to say?
I would really like to see you elaborate on what you said in the original post. What laws do you think should be changed / added and how exactly are they to be executed? Experience shows that more gun control ends up restricting the law abiding citizens and does very little, if anything, to prevent crimes or criminals getting their hands on guns. So what do you propose, exactly, to “fix” this? I’d like details, not just generalizations.
No, Mr. P. experience shows that in the UK, where they have very severe gun control, they enjoy an intentional homicide rate 4 times lower than ours.
Of course, your bias won’t allow you to look at that little fact.
The UK’s gun control has nothing to do with its lower murder rate. correlation does not equal causation.
for one, the UK has always had legislation against private ownership of arms, dating back before the gunpowder age.
I think you need to do some homework on the poverty rate in the United States vs the UK and get back to us.
Despite your ridiculous conclusions that access to “drum magazines” and “assault weapons” contribute to tragedies like this, violent crime is still at historic lows and dropping. Why would it drop with the major resurgence of private civilian firearms ownership in the late 90’s/21st century?
Your “assault weapons” are also used in 1/5th of 1% of all crimes. Sounds like a huge problem to me LMFAO!!!
Shame on us? no. Shame on you. Shame on you for trying to pass that bullshit on law-abiding citizens that own firearms. God forbid, i mean god forbid, you actually blame the shooter for the tragedy.
MikeB, you disgust me. How dare you dishonor the memories of those lost by using their pain and deaths as a fulcrum to maneuver your intellectually bankrupt cause. Do not bother to respond to this post, as I will not deign to address someone so dishonorably callous as yourself.
My, my… What a response this post has generated…
Here is a good read and well balanced discussion from the Denver post. I believe they hit the issues and the problem right on the head. There is no call for gun control although you may believe it is in the first few sentences but you have to read the whole thing.
http://www.denverpost.com/murphy/ci_21124771/aurora-shooting-suspect-is-tragic-reminder-big-problem?source=pkg
Only a moron and a moral invert would blame gun rights advocates for the actions of a deranged killer. It is possible, even likely that stringent gun control laws would have done nothing to stop the killer, except for one: a ban on all guns. I’d rather live with the risk that a deranged individual will kill me in a public place than to surrender my rights for the little bit of personal security it might bring. At the very least, in a free society, we can defend ourselves. Mike should run into the arms of an authoritarian state where all men are slaves. What a fool.
A near complete ban on guns in a country with no fourth Amendment-type protections and one of the lowest crime rates in the world didn’t stop this guy from killing 7 and wounding 10.
Mike-it’s too bad people here are trying to argue logically with you.As far as I’m concerned you and like minded people can go piss up a rope.
“How about if people who buy several guns in a short time are checked out? Would that ruin your life? How about checking out people who buy large amounts of ammo? If theyâre legit, theyâd have no problem. If theyâre raging lunatics like this guy and so many others, maybe something could be done to stop them before they act.” (mikeb30200)
Based on what has been found so far, this guy had no criminal record, no history of mental disorder, PhD candidate, no internet rantings, etc. Nothing there to discover as far as we know as yet. At what point does such a person jump from being “legit” to being illegit? To you and your ilk, the mere fact that someone buys a number of guns and a bunch of ammo in a short period of time (or ever, for that matter) makes them a lunatic unworthy of the ability to do so. Based on my purchasing record over the last few months, according to you I should be in an asylum.
I’d be in the cell next to you, Ken.
See you both there.
Yeah, you guys are really tough. You’d go to jail for your convictions, right?
Please Mike! As if you would do ANYTHING besides whine online and picket for your convictions?
Hypocrite. I’m laughing at the amount of money that you’re making for Robert Farago right now.
Hal, I’m laughing that you think that. You don’t know very much about on-line marketing if you think this post translates into “an amount of money” for Robert Farago.
That was not what I said nor is it what I believe, but I am thoroughly enjoying your smug but delusional sense of superiority.
What I AM saying is that you’re a lightning rod that draws readers into the site to Either attack or defend you. Like it or not, you’re one of the Second Ammendment’s most useful Trolls on several levels. I hope you live forever.
Oh and I make it a point to NEVER visit your site. I know that that would help you in an incredibly minor, almost irrelevant and intangible way. I just can’t bring myself to give you even that much.
WHY would I be ashamed of the logical side of my brain prevailing over my emotional side??
Functional humans know that arms protect us from government, general criminals and wild animals. They don’t blame an object for their societies’ problems.
To attempt to use emotion to guilt people into a cage (oppress) reveals that persons’ very low level of intelligence.
Removing the lawful (and human right) possession of arms will mathematically lower the probability of mass murder during a single event. However in general it will simply disperse the total number of murders. In other words, the murders will still occur in the same numbers, except there will be a lower probability of occurring in the same place. Although the murder rate is more likely to become higher because there is no resistance from the general population.
It is hard to say that having your human right to arms will decrease or increase a troubled societies’ level of violence. In contrast it is not very hard to say that the level of violence in a troubled society will remain the same or is much more likely to increase without it.
FLAME DELETED
http://3bxsofbs.infamousanime.net/?p=4488
The infamous mikeb302000 as seen by another…
—
matt_
Interesting link. Takes the wind out of mike labeling anyone else a hypocrite.
Great find! Thanks for the post!
Seems like mikeB is ok with felons as long as they are his friends to have guns, but not anyone else
http://3bxsofbs.infamousanime.net/?p=4488
So this is a glimpse of mikeb302000 while on his road to righteousness. Shame on you Mike, for for your judging of law-abiding folk.
Bob S. is nothing. You should check out what Linoge has written about me.
Of course, it’s all along the lines of personal attack. When you can’t handle what I say and ask, that’s all you’ve got.
âOf course, itâs all along the lines of personal attack.â
You wish.
In reality, your statements were demonstrated to be wrong to the point of stupidity. If you can’t defend âwhat [you] say and askâ, you try to play the victim. That’s all you’ve got.
The âpersonal attackâ you complain about, and which is the only explanation or defense that you offer for the statements you made — are your own words. You have assassinated your own character. Others have only pointed that out.
I consider you incompetent, a hypocrite, and a troll.
I’m not playing the victim or complaining about personal attacks. I love ’em. They point out the insecurity of the attackers.
As to making my position clear or defending what I propose, we’ve been over and over that. Maybe you’re new around here.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2011/09/solution.html
MikeB, you forgot to mention that what Bob S. and Linoge has written about you is mainly in response to personal attacks from one of your cobloggers. There is at least a dozen or so blog entries on Linoge alone on your site. Since you allow and condone that behavior, you are not going to be getting much sympathy from me or anyone else around here.
No, I’m not all that ânew around hereâ. I’m not new to the tactics of trolls either.
The repeating of your âideasâ is not defending them. You may not consider your false categorization of your own admissions and statements reflecting your character as âpersonal attackâ as a complaint, but you try to use it in place of any real defense. If you falsely, or even truly, claim ‘ad hominem’ attacks you have not answered the legitimate objections made to your statements, and try to pass everything off as just âpersonal attackâ. Anything for a distraction. That’s all you’ve got.
I will waste no more time with you than it pleases me to do so. For now, DNFTT.
Hey Sparky,
You forgot a very important point — what I wrote about you wasn’t very much.
MOST OF THE words came from your very own self; from your blog, from your comments.
So exactly how is it a personal attack to quote you?
Millions of responsible, peaceful and law abiding gun owners being responsible, peaceful and law-abiding equals… nothing happening (nothing worth a headline, anyway). One monster (and a good monster knows how to not look like a monster until it’s time to) creating a tragedy and we get what is the essence of terrorism:
Terrorists actually do relatively small acts of violence (shall we ban cars or quarantine everyone who gets the flu?), but they count on the impact being blown up in the media so they can hurt millions, and in turn impact entire societies (usually not for the better, because folks do dumb destructive stuff when they’re pissed and scared).
Good terrorists also find brilliantly simple ways to defeat ANY kind of prevention you can imagine (and said prevention often dearly costs said societies–the terrorist wins again).
Unless you can figure out and effective way to profile, indentify, track and intercept monsters like this (and doesn’t that sound scary) you’ll probably not only fail to prevent harm, but do some yourself trying. Even the most oppressive societies have atrocities like this (remember Beslan?), but you tend to think of their worst (and most frequent) atrocities as being the ones they perpetrate on their own people.
Breathe. Mourn. Heal. Then think of something constructive to do.
Shame on you Mikey for being 100% WRONG!!! I’ll leave it at that because I’m sure RF would ban me for life if I went any further.
To all my fellow TTAGers, I have a confession to make — I like mikey. There, I said it. I like my two cats, too. However, having a conversation with any of the three is a real challenge, since they all have such a limited vocabulary. But though I can’t converse with any of them, I still understand what exactly they’re saying.
When my cats say “meow,” it could mean that they’re hungry, or happy, or want a scratch behind the ears, whatever. I have to figure it out, which I can usually do even if it’s difficult sometimes. But whatever noise mikey is making, he’s saying “you guys suck, ban all guns,” so there’s nothing to figure out at all. Which means, I guess, that mikey’s thought patterns are a lot less complicated than my cats’.
LMAO
Oh man. Ralph, as is often the case, well done.
LOL well put, sir.
Thanks for the laugh, Ralph. I think you like me a lot more than I like you. I do appreciate your sense of humor, though.
I think you like me a lot more than I like you.
Of course I like you, mikey. I like you because you make us look good. On the other hand, it’s understandible that you hate us when we make you look like a horse’s patoot.
My problem is I don’t like obese and mendacious lawyers who feign superiority while disseminating false ideas about the need for guns. But, the sense of humor takes the edge off that.
Mikey, my man! Great use of the online thesaurus! Now run this through Roget’s: intercourse thyself.
I’ve had a cat smart enough to teach himself how to open the screen door. I had another with the IQ of a turnip.
Either was more intellectually stimulating than Mikey’s posts.
This wouldn’t have happened if we had really strict gun laws…like Norwegian gun laws for example.
Yes, we could keep the children safe in island camps, idylic.
Mike, you don’t understand. Yes, I’m sorry it happened, but if 12 people have to die every single day for my rights then so be it. You see the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America believed that we were citizens, who are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights. If you don’t like individual rights, that’s fine. There are places in the world where people do not have rights. Those people are called subjects. It’s fine, some people are happy to live that way. I am not. I would prefer death to being a subject.
As Ben Franklin said, “Those who would sacrifice their liberty for security deserve neither.”
Mr. Bonomo returns. I thought WITSEC had moved you after you blew your cover.
You might be surprised that I bucked the trend and suggested that if we met your ultimate goal of total lawful disarmament that we would reduce the number spree shootings from a number of less than 1% of total murders to smaller number less than 1%. That’s first order.
Now you might not have thought about this but did you ever ponder why transnational criminal organizations like MS-13, the Russian Mob or the Mexican drug cartels are not also shipping weapons into the US? (Now no snarky comments about ATF off books exporting to Mexico) Let me spell it out to you. Since guns can be legally sold in the US there is no money in it for the TCOs. Now we get second order. Ban private possession and sales of firearms and ammunition presto! we have a market. So now the criminal element which would never comply with the law — after all that what makes them criminals — would have a ready supply of weapons to chose from. They get to gunup so to speak. So when considering all the factors in equation, disarming the law abiding just to prevent 50 murders a year will not result in the rest of country looking like low crime high gun ownership Virginia but instead Virginia and other low crime areas will begin to look like DC, NYC, Chicago and LA. (By the way what is body count look like in Chicago this weekend?) That means there will be more women raped, more people robbed and beaten in the street and in their homes, and when you turn the low crime areas into NYC you will more than make up for the 50 people not murdered by spree killers. Please don’t protest that you aren’t against total lawful citizen disarmament. We both know that you are.
Oh, yeah did you see that James Holmes booby trapped his apartment with homemade explosives? Maybe if he couldn’t easily get guns he just would have decided to build a bomb. He certainly had the skills. So instead of 12 killed by guns we end with 50 killed by a bomb.
The social-cultural makeup of the United States ultimately determines how many murders we have. Over half the total is a result of gang violence. I bet 75% of all murders are criminal on criminal events. At the margin you will get more bang for your murder reduction buck by dealing with the gang problem than you would by making it impossible for spree shooters to get guns.
I agree 100%. Drugs are illegal for everyone and yet still flow like urine in a public swimming pool so why do people think it wouldn’t happen with guns as well.
What sort of “stricter gun control measures” are you talking about? Psychic screeners?
“How about if people who buy several guns in a short time are checked out?”
He was already checked out for each individual firearm purchase, what more do you want?
“How about checking out people who buy large amounts of ammo?”
What would that accomplish that the previous background checks hadn’t already?
“Would stricter controls stop some of the lunatics like Holmes without interfering with the good guys?”
No. The only way to prevent spree shootings is a “magical, all guns disappear” hypothetical scenario. They still happen all over the world, in countries with far stricter laws, like Norway and Germany.
“Therefore, I sarcastically refer to it as ‘precious,’ meaning that youâre more concerned with it than avoiding the Holmes and Loughner situations.”
Self-defense use of firearms occurs far, far more often than spree shootings.
“Some of the lunatics that own guns could be identified and disarmed without interfering in your life one little bit. But you wonât have it. Why?”
Some? Maybe. But usually, people have to do something to get noticed first. If they don’t, what the hell are you going to look for in your background check? “Oh, the neighbor’s say he’s a nice, polite, kinda shy guy.” HOLY CRAP I CAN’T EVEN BEGIN TO COUNT HOW MANY SERIAL KILLERS’ NEIGHBORS USED THAT DESCRIPTION, THE MAN MUST BE A LUNATIC!
Or maybe he’s just a nice, polite, kinda shy guy. The dangerous nutcases are the ones that seem normal.
“Sorry, Rabbi, influencing the scared and gullible of our society is what you do.”
Funny, considering that you’ve bought the notion that something must be done (in the form of stricter gun control) without a second thought. You don’t even know what could be done, but you want something stricter. You chastise us for opposing your demands that the government do “something” to protect you. You don’t even know what “something” is, but you’re so scared of spree shooters that you’ve decided that anyone who opposes this stricter “something” is a self-absorbed, gullible, fear-monger.
If you want to know what a credulous coward looks like, Mike, just look in the mirror.
If I thought it would help I might be entertained.
mikeb302000 have you actually read the bio in this person?
I would say no because if you had you would know this was no wack job. What he did was crazy in ideal and many of us would say he is crazy, but he is far from it. He knew what he was doing was wrong, he knew how he was going to do it, with through planning.
He was not as far as we know ever committed against his will. He was a brilliant mind who studied at that salk institute for biological studies. He was raised by middle class parents in a nice area of San Diego. He has no known run in’s with the law. He did not leave much in the way of a trail in regard to what he was planning on doing.
In many ways he is exactly like you or I on the surface.
No amount of gun control would have stopped this and gun banishment is not an option.
Narratives like this are designed to build momentum for a cause. No need for rationality, facts, nor logic. If you think it was bad for legal gun owners before before, wait till the mourning period is passed. I think this incident may well prove to be the cross gun rights will be nailed to.
If he has the ability to build the bombs he did, he could easily have simply loaded up a truck with explosives and done his killing more efficiently with a bombing like Oklahoma City. Rather than doing this he chose to bring guns and get personal. But Mike you are asking the wrong question. Why did he choose a gun free zone? Could it be for the easy targets? Rather than ask why we resist gun registries and limits on our rights to defend ourselves against predators with two or more feet as well as defend ourselves against our government (who you would trust to determine which of us can have a tool to defend ourselves against in the first place). The question should be – “Why do we allow gun free zones in America?” This is where the mass shootings have been occurring, after all.
So since you want to ask the wrong question. I will ask the right one. “Why do we allow gun free zones in America. Why do we willingly disarm ourselves to become targets of opportunity for criminals?”
Columbine, Virgina Tech, Fort hood, and others were gun free zones too.
Wow. Just wow. Perhaps I am a bit slow, or maybe I missed something altogether, but what would more gun control have accomplished here? Short form answer: Nothing.
The guns were legally purchased by a man without a criminal record and taken to a place that is obviously posted as a gun free zone with the intention of malice in mind. (Side note, how come there is never wholesale slaughter like this at a gun show or competition meet?) At what point did we who did not take our weapons into public and shed blood go on trial and get convicted for the actions of a criminal? Once again the opportunistic troll has resurfaced and let his blow hole spout on about something that he knows nothing about as he dances in the blood of the dead for a cause that will do nothing more than empower more tragedy.
If gun control works so well, why is Mexico City not a bastion of bliss and harmony?
I do so love it when that waste of perfectly harvest-able organs pops up like a pimple on prom night in the swirling chaos of tragedy.
‘Bout time someone said it,
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/20/you-cant-regulate-crazy/
This entire post should be marked as “FLAME DELETED”. Shame on the editors for allowing this uninformative, factless, useless garbage to be posted.
I made that point. It was deleted.
As will this one, and my reply.
The Truth About Guns (and censorship) has lost me as a reader today.
FLAME DELETED
Same here, unsubscribing from this site. I’ve got other gun feeds to read that wouldn’t stoop to… whatever this is. To allow this post was to invite a useless moot discussion from two sides who refuse to see the other’s point, a pissing match. (Robert: You’re really going to let a guest poster tell your readers ‘shame on you’?)
The only way to stop a lunatic with no criminal record from doing what this lunatic did would be to create a society of snitches. In that society, anyone who believes a neighbor, family member, co-worker, or stranger is a little too weird could report him to the authorities who would then investigate him, follow him, detain him, search his home and possessions, and generally do whatever they want until they’re satisfied that he poses no threat. In other words, it would be a society with no right to privacy, no due process, and no right against unreasonable search and seizure. I have no doubt that’s the society Mayor Bloomberg, AG Holder, and President Obama would force us into but that’s not a world where any sane person wants to live.
We already have that, the society of snitches, but when it comes to gun ownership you guys want a pass. When the feds prevent other 9\11 attacks, you’re all for it. But not with gun rights. That’s an indication of how self-centered and biased you guys are.
Mike would you be happy right now If I called the FBI and said you were a nutjob building an arsenal and where going to shoot up the local airport? would you be okay if they needed no warrant to breach your home and workplace and search, and bring you up on charges on anything they might find? perhaps pirated MP3’s on your computer? (woops forgot about those from the 90’s did you? well to bad, there not relevant to the complaint? oh well.) Mean while you are proned out on your front lawn, your coworkers and boss think you are a criminial as the police tear apart their buisness and fire you. but I mean society would be safer right?
Is that what I’m talking about, Geoff?
You need to exaggerate what I say in order to argue against it. Why do you think that is?
While I disagree that those measures would have made a difference at all given that the shooter apparently planned well in advance it’s refreshing to read posts that diverge from the mainstream opinion here, they could in this case have been a bit more in depth and better thought through. It’s a good thing if a community isn’t just an echo chamber.
MikeB,
Shame on gun control nuts like you. Your types keep people from being prepared mentally and physically with the tools and attitude to defend themselves. You’d rather have people naively rely upon a police rescue after they are dead from some attack.
The day when a little inconvenience & hassle are already here… have you flown lately? Does that TSA screener now need to be “screening” all movie goers? There are numerous laws which were already violated. What is to be gained by legislating more unenforceable laws? In addition to federal gun laws imposed by the National Firearms Act (1934), Gun Control Act (1968), Firearms Owner’s Protection Act (1986), Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993), the 1994 Omnibus Crime Control Act and other laws, most states and some local jurisdictions have imposed their own firearms restrictions. “Common sense” firearms laws are already on the books, in case you didn’t know. I suppose in the name of public safety we should all submit to a frisk, pat down, metal detector sweep, & how about a deep cavity search when going to the movies?? The issue is that this individual was a deranged maniac & that type of village idiot does not care what laws he breaks or who he hurts or kills in the process. Owning several guns, a stockpile of ammo, being a car owner with cases of beer in the refrigerator doesn’t make someone a drunk driving gun toting drive by shooter… it is the choices they make. This individual is a disgusting example of evil plain & simple. I hope that in the name of public safety we are not expected to give up any more of our unalienable rights so that an illusion of safety & control can be given to the naive among us. Finally, my thoughts & prayers are with the victims & their families & friends.
Seriously, if I wanted to read what mike spews I have plenty of resources available to me. He’s alright as a commenter simply because I enjoy the endless ways to destroy his arguments. However I will not subscribe to a feed that enables this statist mentality. I already have a whole folder titled “libtards” so I can keep track of the insanity that is called liberalism. I can’t really put a gun feed in the libtard folder now can I?
Remove him please. I’ve had enough. Comments from mike are fine and sometimes entertaining but I don’t come here to read nonsensical liberal posts.
+1
He has exceeded my level of tolerance for idiocy.
Great to see you’re becoming more and more hateable over time Michael. Cheers.
Your post made me smile. Being relegated to the trash bin as a D-list spokesman (spokesperson is more accurate)for a dead issue is clearly making you angry and insane. I like it. You reap what you sow bud.
Have fun when Europe collapses. Don’t come back.
“Gun control measures might very well have identified Mr. Holmes as an unfit person.”
About as likely as:
“Two cups of green tea per day would have soothed Mr. Holmes, and prevented this tragedy.”
If nothing else, I’ll give you credit for having the courage to post such a stupid, inept argument on a forum where you must have known it would be ridiculed and decisively rejected.
A society that gives up freedom for security deserves neither.
Another blood dancer spewing ignorance. Like the gun laws in Norway? Did all those laws stop Anders Behring Breivik from killing 69 people?
You guys are getting trolled so hard.
FLAME DELETED
Wow – Mike B!tch302000 can troll and flame, but we can’t? Really?
Notice how mike selectively replied but will not answer further questions to develop and defend his positions.
I suspect that Mike has “editorial rights” on this blog and has the ability to delete posts.
For the record, Mike has no admin rights here. He can’t edit or delete posts.
I fail to see how my post was a flame. I just suggested that it would be worth big money to see the look on his face whenever his family is victimized. I wish no ill will on him personally (ok, I lie), but for someone who talks big crap on this blog and condemns us, I think everyone would like to be the proverbial fly on the wall to see how he reacts when crime strikes him up close. I believe his opinions would change. quickly
Yes, Mike has no admin rights on here. He cannot shape the argument to his own benefit. That is why blogs like this one are popular and this blog post alone has 200+ responses. Contrast that with his own website where moderation is in full effect. 200+ responses on there would be a good month if not more.
Ruffy, Why is it so hard for you to tell the truth.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/06/may-stats-new-high-for-visits.html
I know that’s nothing compared to TTAG, but it’s not like Ruffyboy says either.
MikeB. I specifically said responses, not page visits. Go ahead, go back over the last 30 days and count the number of responses to blog posts on your site. I think it is pretty evident that some of your cobloggers moderation techniques drive traffic away from your site. But then I could care less if you can see that or not.
Sorry, if you were talking about comments, you’re absolutely right. I’ll be making some changes soon which should correct that a bit. I just want to observe for a few days and get over the jet lag.
What you did in your description of my blog though was to imply that moderation and deleting of comments is the norm. It’s not. Prior to my vacation I allowed all comments and deleted only the most vile and off-topic ones.
Ill just note he has replied and his replies have gotten much less lucid and more frantic and scrambling. He’s falling into the Star Trek “Do Something Jim!” Mentality and has not thought out consequences for his “laws”.
If Mike can’t even be bothered to provide evidence that the gun control measures he has in mind (And what are they, exactly?) would have prevented this bloodshed, then why should I even consider giving up the “personal precious rights” he mocks? And the cherry on top is the obligatory suggestion that I have blood on my hands. Nice. If he’s trying to help rally the pro-second amendment crowd then he’s doing a good job of it.
If we are to use utilitarian reasoning in restricting rights (ie, restricting “X” right yields a public benefit), then following utilitarian logic would mean that we restrict the rights that, when abused, cause the most harm first, working our way down to the rights which, when abused, cause lesser harm.
If we follow such logic, the First Amendment needs to be first on the chopping block. People who scribble political screeds and nutjob theories cost far more people their lives and property than anything else. Think of how many lives we could save if we could wave a magic wand and prevent the publication and reading of such things as “Mein Kampf,” or better yet, “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts,” and “Manifesto of the Communist Party” by Marx. Marxist philosophy has caused the deaths of over 60 million people in the 20th century, Hitler’s rantings were the root of perhaps 20+ million deaths, so I’d say that if we’re going to restrict rights, banning the sale, publication, ownership, reading, dissemination, quotation, referencing and other derivative works based on such publications.
This would have the added benefit of collapsing entire liberal arts departments at major universities, which would save students (and their long-suffering parents) a fair bit of coin.
MikeB’s posts are good for getting lots of replies from advocates of the RKBA. The more replies the better TTAG gets in search engine results. Thanks to MikeB, more and new viewers are brought to TTAG where many of them will convert to respecting and appreciating guns, and then becoming gun owners.
Good point. Whenever we feed the mikey the troll, we are making a step toward promoting responsible gun ownership. Help feed mikey–if it saves just one gun……
I think Tom Kratman said it all in this essay from 15 years ago:
http://www.tomkratman.com/rant2ndamend.html
“Shame on all of you.”
So the government that isn’t allowed to tell a woman what she can or can’t do with an embryo in her belly is allowed to tell me that I can or can not buy something because it’s scary to some of my fellow citizens?
The government that says that a man can’t marry another man and woman can’t marry another woman has all the right to decide how much of a product I am allowed to consume?
Gun control advocates, and a large portion of the narrow minded American populace thinks that the government is allowed to control one aspect of your life but not another. Shame on the citizens of these states united for allowing political allegiance to blind them to what is truly wrong in this country.
Shame on everyone who would use the actions of a mad man to further their own cause.
Tom, you take the cake. You’re AGAINST the government allowing women’s rights and FOR unlimited gun rights. You are a regular riot.
Actually Mike I haven’t had coffee yet, but it seems that his point is the following.
If the government doesn’t tell you about abortion, or who you can marry, then why can they regulate guns?
I think his point is why pick and choose. Like who you can marry, or the size soda you can consume, or what capacity magazine you can buy.
People say we don’t need 2A it was for hunting, or we have the national guard now so we don’t need a militia.
First off the national guard does not answer to the people, but the government. We still hunt in this country. Also 2A is meant to keep the government in check because it can’t control the people. So if the government has tanks and M-16’s and grenades then so should the people so we the people keep the government in check.
Shay’s rebellion happened for a reason. The civil war happened for a reason. I see a very high level of partisanship and class warfare which has been fueled by this administration. If this continues there could very well be a challenge on the part of the people and some states to the current status. It won’t be pretty.
“Also 2A is meant to keep the government in check because it can’t control the people.”
No, the 2A was meant to man the militia, a concept that does not exist any longer, which makes the Amendment anachronistic and meaningless. It’s been bastardized through the last 5 or 6 decades as a concerted effort to give life to the so-called “individual” interpretation. But it’s bogus.
OMG!! The 2 A. is about a “state’s right to have a militia ‘interpretation'” is offered once again. That creative ‘interpretation’ was invented and then refuted already, over many years. Can’t you find something new, instead of trying to resurrect that dead horse?
“No, the 2A was meant to man the militia,”
Not remotely. “The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.” http://guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html
“a concept that does not exist any longer, which makes the Amendment anachronistic and meaningless.”
Nope. Wrong again. Militia concepts do exist, its called the national guard and civil defense volunteers. It is also the capacity for groups of armed civilians to assemble and take the fight to a foreign invader or tyrannical government.
The 2nd amendment is no more obsolete and anachronistic than the other amendments in the bill of rights. The internet, blogs, radio, and twitter do not make the 1st amendment obsolete, nor does terrorism make the 4th amendment do the same.
“Itâs been bastardized through the last 5 or 6 decades as a concerted effort to give life to the so-called âindividualâ interpretation. But itâs bogus.”
Supreme court says otherwise. See DC vs Heller. It was ruled as a individual right. Get over it, move on.
Can you be any more wrong? I guess so. Please demonstrate you at least have a capacity for being correct for once.
While you’re at it, why don’t you explain to us how relevant the 3rd Amendment is too.
“While youâre at it, why donât you explain to us how relevant the 3rd Amendment is too.”
While you’re at it, have a glass of STFU and stop trolling.
Hahahaha. Great response.
yeah you cannot refute a single thing i say, so you pull the red herring card with the 3rd amendment.
Classical. You like my response? There’s plenty more where that came from.
No Mike, I’m not. I am against the government limiting the rights of any citizen who has not committed a crime. I was attempting to highlight the inequity of social regulation. I am so much in favor of woman’s rights, I have a mail in ballot for the wife so she doesn’t have to leave the kitchen to suffrage. (That was a joke, tip your waitress, I’m here all week!) You and a large portion gun owners (sadly) think that the government should be allowed to pick and choose what parts of life get regulated. The Republican line is that a woman shouldn’t, of her own volition, be able to remove a parasitic organism inside her body but guns shouldn’t be banned and torture is okay. The Democratic line is that the government shouldn’t be dictating what constitutes love, thus allowing gay and lesbian couples to get hitched, but lets take the guns away from everyone because they are harmful and scary.
I know it’s a crazy thing in this time of partisan politics but I am for the right of every citizen to live their life with no meddling from the government or any other group or lone “ideologue” who wants to have their will and only their will imposed on the rest of the citizens of this country. That makes me “for” a lot of the things that my fellow gun owners are traditionally against, like abortion rights, gay marriage, flag burning, etc. It also makes me for a lot of things that antigunners aren’t, like the death penalty, gun ownership, and eating animals because they are made of delicious meat (that was a second joke!). If an extra check from the government is so minimally invasive to gun owners, why not to married folks? Or families with kids?
What if the government wants to make sure you and your significant other are really in love? What if the Feds drop in to give you a litmus test? Points off for not sitting with held hands or arms around one another. Points added for knowing what “Fine” means each time its uttered in a different inflection. What right of yours is violated then? How would that inconvenience your life? What if the government wants to make sure your kids are as well taken care of as your taxes claim they are? Who does that hurt? All of us. Everyone who is a citizen of this country is lessened when that happens.
Why? Because they simply haven’t the right to tell you that one thing is or is not okay with you or your private life. I know it is quite a lot to wrap your mind around, this idea that the government isn’t supposed to play around in your personal life, but I truly hope one day a majority of the populace will believe it.
Shame on every single person who would use the actions of a mad man to further their own cause. Opportunism isn’t a fetching look on anyone.
This has to be the worst trolling attempt ever.
In another response to mike’s drivel I think the thoughts of a man far more enlightened than him are in order. Cesare Beccaria who in 1764 published “On Crimes and Punishments” had this to say,
” The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? And does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.”
Any thoughts mike?
Nice quote, there are others as well from Jefferson to Adam’s, all pretty much say the same thing.
Yes, nice find (source?). Beccaria is considered the founder of liberal criminal justice theory and laid the intellectual foundation for ending Britain’s bloody code. He’s an original source that’s always worth a read.
Mikeb30200, shame on you for your pathetic thought process.
Really? Shame on us? How about shame on you, because your ignorant on the subject. All guns are designed to be reloaded. Period. As technology and innovation filters down mainly from the military, it finds it’s way into civilian arms.
How many bullets are enough? 10, 5, No sir, the real answer you and your gun banners want is ZERO!
Loughner, lied sir, on his 4473, that the Federal Govt. requires purchasers to fill out. That is also a crime, but so is shooting all the people he did that day.
So, the bottom line is this: GUN CONTROL DOESN’T WORK, NEVER HAS AND NEVER WILL!
If your a felon, you buy your guns not in a store but on the streets, usually stolen from us!
Also, as far as mentally Ill people buying guns. Everyone apparently knew Laughner was a Whack Job, but he was never arrested, committed or otherwise identified. Therefore, under the law, he was NOT PROHIBITED from buying guns.
You have one thing correct. That the 2nd amendment rights are Precious. If you want my firearm rights sir, I have one thing to say. MOLON LABE! In case you don’t know what that means, let me spell it out! COME TAKE THEM!
As always, I wait for Mike to respond with any form of logical argument (I have ceased holding my breath many posts ago). He is asking the wrong question. It is not why do we resist efforts to disarm us and make us targets with gun control laws and registry lists. The real question is “Why do we allow gun free zones in America?”
From mike’s comments, I am highly doubtful of whether his ideas on gun control will have no positive effect on preventing these sort of tragedies.
Here’s a more rational way to look at things:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229929/gun-control-and-mass-murders/john-r-lott-jr
Instead of constantly spewing the same emotion driven anti-gun rhetoric, how about looking with a rational mind at both sides of the story, instead of blindly supporting something that clearly doesn’t work as advertised?
FLAME DELETED
I have to say I agree with Mike or at the least I understand his thinking. I I have been a life long hunter and have seen a drastic change in the so called gun culture. Really, when I was young gun shops were hunting shops, no one really bought handguns and such, at least not at the level they do now.
I think there is a rather simple way to address the problem. We need to take an unbiased look at where the problem originates. By unbiased I mean look objectively at all aspects of gun violence. I think the first thing any unbiased observer would notice is that vast majority of violence is firmly in the minority community and among the poor and disfranchised of all races.
The problem cannot be totally eliminated but greatly alleviate by simply looking at the British model. Although the Brits do not explicitly state it, guns there are not readily available to the poor. Now as any honest person will admit low intelligence and mental instability go hand and hand with poverty. This James Holmes would have never been able to purchase a weapon legally if there were a wealth means test. The test could be simple and would not exclude of all those that deserve to have a firearm; say a four year college degree and a net worth of $500,000. Although Mr. Holmes had the education he did not have the financial means.
This is how it is implicitly in the UK and the gun violence is a fraction of ours. Basically only those with financial means own firearms there, the poor do not.
To look at it another way, what do the poor contribute to society? They don’t, they take. They should not be allowed to have firearms since the poor are the cause of the vast majority of gun violence.
So Mike you are not alone in looking for some common sense gun laws in this country. This is from a guy who has owned his own guns since the age of 13. The problem isn’t guns, the problem is people with low intelligence and mental problems and the way to screen these people out is to check their bank accounts. Although this may sound callous it is true as anyone that is honest with himself will admit. Personally I am tired of seeing lowlife malefactors walking out of a gun shop with assault rifles and handguns with 15 round magazines.
Thanks George.
Agreed.
George you have just allowed us to see what an elitest snob you are!!!!!
By your above standards I should not be allowed to own guns because: I am poor($35000/yr)income, I am not a Long gun hunter only, I do hunt with handguns, because my bank account doesn’t equal or exceed the GDP of some small third world country???
What kind of bulls&^t are you spouting??
I am a very proud US Army Veteran of 15 yrs!!! Served in Europe, Middle East and Stateside!!!! Ranger, Airborne, LRSLEaders Course at Ft Bragg NC, BlackHawk Crewchief/Mechanic.
I am a family man, 4 kid’s, 5 grandkids, and a wonderful spouse!!! We both work our butt’s off everyday to provide for our family, we pay our taxes, and support our schools and communities!!!
What is it I take being poor??? No free health care..I pay every week for my health insurance, pay my hospital bills if I have any!!! I am not a drug user, do not drink, not a rapist or screwball!!! So i fail to see how I or my “Kind” of Poor People areto blame or even part of the problems of violence in this country!!!
Have you Sir ever been to England, West Germany, France, Belgium, Russia or East Berlin????
I have been to all of these countries in the 15 yrs I served my country and I for one am Damn Glad To Live In The USA!!! Our rights are our rights, given to us by Our Founding Fathers!!!!
If you don’t like it take your BlueBlood Royalty loving butt to East Germany or Russia or maybe Sudan and see how long your high dollar bank account and attitude will protect you from the local bad guys!!!
I wish you luck Sir!!! Your’s would be a very short existence in another country!!!
God Bless You and Have Mercy on Your Unenlightened Self!!!!
The problem isnât guns, the problem is people with low intelligence and mental problems and the way to screen these people out is to check their bank accounts.
Yes, the problem is stupid people, but being poor doesn’t mean you’re stupid. You’re just being a stereotypical racist POS who thinks only you and your clan members should be allowed to have guns.
Here’s the flaw with your argument though – part of living in a free society means that everyone gets the same rights. If you do something stupid (like rob a bank, rape someone, kill someone), then you go to jail or get executed – but up until you do something like that, you have the same rights as everyone else.
So George, let me make sure I’m understanding you here, you are saying that rich people don’t commit acts of violence with guns? Just so we’re clear. That what you’re saying?
Why dont you step down from your elitist high horse for a minute to discuss this with one of the “common folk”. Lets talk about the UK first, since you draw much of your argument from that vein. The UK has the HIGHEST rate of reported violent crime in the world. So, maybe gun crime is down because their citizens have no rights, but guess what, banning guns didnt stop bad people from doing bad things, which seems to me what all you elitist gun grabbing scumbags think will happen like magic when you eliminate the right to own a firearm.
Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
Also of note, your so called “no gun crime in the UK since only the elite can afford them” point? For the year 2006/2007 the UK had close to 10 THOUSAND violent gun crimes. In 2010/2011 that rate is still at 7 THOUSAND violent gun crimes. Yeah, that gun control is really working out.
Heres a couple links for you:
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm
2. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0611/hosb0611?view=Binary
3. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary
george, i had to read that twice because it was so out there and asinine.
That elitist, class warfare bullshit is the exact fucking reason why we separated from the British empire!
I think you chucklefucks (you and mikeb) need to do some homework on Britain. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/crime-rates-in-england-and-wales-worse-than-us-2042216.html
Stick to your gun grabbing bullshit and leave the 2A alone mikey because you don’t have a clue you “FLAME DELETED”. I saved RF some time and flame deleted myself.
I have to say I agree with MikeB on this one. Some measures to understand why this guy bought so much war gear (that’s all you can call it really… you wouldn’t hunt with this – not animals anyway) and what it was being used for would have gone a long way to stop or at least hinder this guy.
I do believe that some measures to figure out ones stability should be taken. I think it would go a long way to stop these lunatics from doing these things. It at least would make them think twice about doing it for fear of being committed. I do believe in self defense and carry everywhere I go that is not federally telling me not to.
There are just too many crazies out there and something needs to be done to change it. There is no ignoring it anymore. People are gone in the head nowadays â simple.
My point will be made based on the replies to this post.
There are just too many crazies out there and something needs to be done to change it.
There are very few crazy people out there. We’re talking less than a tenth of a percent of the population. The problem is people like you shit your pants and cry and make a big deal on the rare occurrences when there is a crazy person doing something bad. You ignore the 99.995% of the time when everything is fine.
“Totenglocke says:
July 23, 2012 at 02:10
âThere are just too many crazies out there and something needs to be done to change it.â
There are very few crazy people out there. Weâre talking less than a tenth of a percent of the population. The problem is people like you shit your pants and cry and make a big deal on the rare occurrences when there is a crazy person doing something bad. You ignore the 99.995% of the time when everything is fine.”
There are a lot of crazy people out there. A tenth of the population is a lot, a fifth is a lot. What is your point in this statement exactly? Are you trying to reinforce my point that there are a lot of crazy people out there?
People like me? Shit my pants? Have you read my post, Tough guy? I believe in defending myself. I believe in the right carry a gun and defend ones-self. I do it everyday. I am also one of those âoh so eccentricâ home carry guys. haha! Shit my pants. Sounds like you already did trying to write a sensible rebuttal, Tough guy.
Donât try and act like you know anything about me because clearly you have not read anything I have ever written on here. That or your just a moron.
âThe problem is people like you shit your pants and cry and make a big deal on the rare occurrences when there is a crazy person doing something bad.â
The problem is people with decency and care for a group of innocent folk having a night out and then being shot like dogs upsets you when it happens every now and then for no reason but senseless gun violence. Is that what you meant to write? Because the other sentence makes you sound like a heartless, out-of-touch lunatic.
âYou ignore the 99.995% of the time when everything is fine.”
What does that even mean? Were you up late? Are you talking about the other unreported, small instances of violent, criminal gun use? If you are I carry all the time and home carry for that reason. Itâs very hard to respond to you when you have actually said very little. Just an aside I felt I should point out.
Thanks for proving my point.
Buuurr, what happened to you, man? You don’t sound like the Buuurr that I know and love.
hah… he has seen too many mall ninjas with an unstable gun fetish that scream second amendment when they are denied a new, dangerous, absolutely ludicrous toy to kill things with.
burrrr, what toys would those be?
Please elaborate.
“Dex says:
July 23, 2012 at 14:48
burrrr, what toys would those be?
Please elaborate.”
Oh, I don’t know. The 20MM I had the displeasure of almost having pop my ears in Arizona last winter… When asked what in the hell he wanted with it he stated, “You have to protect your family man… it’s your right!”
Protect them from what? Armored mechs from the planet Zonk? Invading Mongels that can be hit from 2 miles away? Light armored cars and aircraft?
How about the douch at my local range with a gun that he can barely heft with both hands? Forget the name of it but it was a revolver that he couldn’t even lift for extended periods of time. Let alone hit anything called a grouping. He couldn’t wear it on his hip. He couldn’t conceal it on his person for public wear. The only thing he could do was put it in a bag and take it out when needed. What would you call that type of gun? I’d call it a toy.
How about pretty much any person here in Ohio that has a kitted out AK or AR? Night vision and all that crap. I wanted one. Until I read that I can’t hunt anything in Ohio with a semi-auto rifle. So why have them? Home defense? Gimme a break. More toys.
Those are just some of the toys I know of. I am sure you, though you would never say it, have seen many people with toys as well.
“Oh, I donât know. The 20MM I had the displeasure of almost having pop my ears in Arizona last winter⌠When asked what in the hell he wanted with it he stated, âYou have to protect your family man⌠itâs your right!â
you apparently got a facetious reply. How many of those 20mm’s are causing problems for public safety in the US? I havent heard of one. If he keeps it locked in his safe and is responsible in its use, then how does that affect you? (PS wear earpro)
“Protect them from what? Armored mechs from the planet Zonk? Invading Mongels that can be hit from 2 miles away? Light armored cars and aircraft?”
It would be good for smashing rocks two miles away for one.
“How about the douch at my local range with a gun that he can barely heft with both hands? Forget the name of it but it was a revolver that he couldnât even lift for extended periods of time. Let alone hit anything called a grouping. He couldnât wear it on his hip. He couldnât conceal it on his person for public wear. The only thing he could do was put it in a bag and take it out when needed. What would you call that type of gun? Iâd call it a toy.”
again, how is that affecting you?
“How about pretty much any person here in Ohio that has a kitted out AK or AR? Night vision and all that crap. I wanted one. Until I read that I canât hunt anything in Ohio with a semi-auto rifle. So why have them? Home defense? Gimme a break. More toys.”
im not sure why one would need night vision, but thats freedom baby. Why do I drive a Porsche? because I simply can.
“Those are just some of the toys I know of. I am sure you, though you would never say it, have seen many people with toys as well.”
Ive seen people with toys and have them myself. What is the problem with toys?
Sounds like a case of jealousy and envy to me. BTW, before you respond with a mall ninja comment, I am a combat veteran and business owner. Everybody has hobbies; mine happens to be guns.
“I have to say I agree with MikeB on this one. Some measures to understand why this guy bought so much war gear (thatâs all you can call it really⌠you wouldnât hunt with this â not animals anyway) and what it was being used for would have gone a long way to stop or at least hinder this guy.”
? please elaborate. Are you suggesting that a background check should be conducted for buying “war gear”? What “war gear” should be regulated? assault vests? webbing? rucksacks?
“I do believe that some measures to figure out ones stability should be taken. I think it would go a long way to stop these lunatics from doing these things. It at least would make them think twice about doing it for fear of being committed. I do believe in self defense and carry everywhere I go that is not federally telling me not to.”
The problem is that he wasn’t highlighted as a lunatic nor would have raised a red flag. That is the problem with this case. Unless they build a machine to literally pick one’s brain, there will always be people that snap. Again, elaborate these measures…
“There are just too many crazies out there and something needs to be done to change it. There is no ignoring it anymore. People are gone in the head nowadays â simple.”
http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=About_Mental_Illness&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=53155
There are a lot of “crazies” of varying illnesses and symptoms.
One in four adults experience a mental disorder varying from mild depression to psychosis.
Of course, there is already legislation against mentally ill being able to purchase firearms. You are assuming that he was diagnosed, which obviously isn’t the case. You are also making the assumption that he is indeed mentally ill, which may not be necessarily the case. If he was not diagnosed nor is mentally ill, then i guess he could legally purchase a firearm (or if the database wasnt updated).
What are your solutions then? background checks for felony charges, Lautenberg violations, mental illness, dishonorable discharge, and other pre-requisites for legal firearms ownership passed the test. 20,000 state and federal laws did nothing to prevent him from purchasing the firearms and doing the deed.
Dex says:
July 23, 2012 at 20:43
â? please elaborate. Are you suggesting that a background check should be conducted for buying âwar gearâ? What âwar gearâ should be regulated? assault vests? webbing? rucksacks?â
Yes, a call to the ATF to log it should be done. Donât you think that this guy buying all this stuff within two months would have been picked up on if that were the case? And if it did, what harm does it do the average law abiding citizen to go through these checks? What do you have to hide?
âThe problem is that he wasnât highlighted as a lunatic nor would have raised a red flag. That is the problem with this case. Unless they build a machine to literally pick oneâs brain, there will always be people that snap. Again, elaborate these measuresâŚâ
No? No red flags? He sounded like a lunatic to me. And a lot of people stated how weird he was. Some were down right disturbed by him. Iâve personally picked out two lunatics so far in my life and been right about both. One on a bus ride home with a girlfriend and another just last fall in Oregon where I had to pull a gun on someone I deemed a little off (who later broke into our home swinging for the fences). I donât have any super powers, I am not a trained person in this regard. I used common sense and made a conscience effort to tell my friends and family of my feelings. In both cases it was favorable for me and my own. This guy had many quirks and abnormalities to point out. Most people prefer to turn a blind eye in this regard. Like the guy yelling in the street that he is going to kill everyone. He wonât do it. He is just drunk, right? Reminds me a lot of Loughner.
âhttp://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=About_Mental_Illness&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=53155
There are a lot of âcraziesâ of varying illnesses and symptoms.
One in four adults experience a mental disorder varying from mild depression to psychosis. â
Yeah. 26%. I did the research on that earlier. I know this.
âOf course, there is already legislation against mentally ill being able to purchase firearms. You are assuming that he was diagnosed, which obviously isnât the case. You are also making the assumption that he is indeed mentally ill, which may not be necessarily the case. If he was not diagnosed nor is mentally ill, then i guess he could legally purchase a firearm (or if the database wasnt updated).â
Again, I am aware. No, I am not assuming he was diagnosed. You are reading into it too much. I am saying he is crazy because he shot a bunch of people, Dude. I donât need a diagnosis. He is gone. He is mentally ill. Do you think him not? What rational argument can you make that what he did was not crazy? I am just saying that there needs to be something looked at. I donât know what. But obviously the current state of the system does not work. Here, or abroad (Canada). I have no solutions. If I did I would be a very rich and hated man. I think there should actually be a sit down with federal agents personally. Many will disagree with this but I think it is needed at this point. The healthcare system would also need to be looked at. It is failing people.
Please, respond again. I enjoy the banter and ideas.
“Yes, a call to the ATF to log it should be done. Donât you think that this guy buying all this stuff within two months would have been picked up on if that were the case? And if it did, what harm does it do the average law abiding citizen to go through these checks? What do you have to hide?”
Calling the ATF for “war gear”? LMFAO!!! Im sorry, but that is ridiculous. With such a law, you should also call the ATF if I purchase a bunch of hemp satchels because I can store magazines in there.
Dude, war gear is pieces of nylon sewn together to hold magazines, equipment, etc etc. I suppose if I bought satchels and backpacks at REI or Old Navy, I should get checked out too. bahahahaha!
What do I have to hide? nothing. That is not the point. The idea of “you dont have nothing to hide, right?” is childish and stupid, not to mention it is anti-america. Its called the bill of rights.
“Those that give up essential liberty for little or no temporary safety deserve neither” -ben franklin
âThe problem is that he wasnât highlighted as a lunatic nor would have raised a red flag. That is the problem with this case. Unless they build a machine to literally pick oneâs brain, there will always be people that snap. Again, elaborate these measuresâŚâ
You are making a assumption of lunacy on your part. I didn’t read anything about him being weird; you are taking the appearances in the courtroom and drawing to wrong conclusions. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-shooting-denver-profilebre86m02a-20120723,0,1051907.story
He was shy, quiet, though was perceived as a otherwise normal citizen. he was not in and out of trouble as a youth, did not mutiliate animals, and didn’t grow up in poverty. No wonder he wasn’t declared mentally unfit to buy a firearm….
and how would you know about his quirks? (that people that knew him seem to fail to mention)
âhttp://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=About_Mental_Illness&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=53155
“Again, I am aware. No, I am not assuming he was diagnosed. You are reading into it too much.”
No, you are drawing into wrong conclusions. He was not declared insane. you are making a half-assed assumption that he is insane.
“I am saying he is crazy because he shot a bunch of people, Dude. I donât need a diagnosis. He is gone. He is mentally ill. Do you think him not?”
Im saying that we do not know the facts. You also need to study other serial killers. Many of them are ordinary people living ordinary lives that commit unspeakable crimes simply because they can. They are, however, completely rational. I think you need to do some homework on what “insanity” is.
” Here, or abroad (Canada). I have no solutions. If I did I would be a very rich and hated man. I think there should actually be a sit down with federal agents personally. Many will disagree with this but I think it is needed at this point. The healthcare system would also need to be looked at. It is failing people.”
A sit down with federal agents? for what exactly?
Everybody knows the healthcare system is broken, but that is a entirely different argument for another day.
Please tell me how any more legislation would have prevented this tragedy. Im listening and I cannot wait to hear this.
“Gun control measures MIGHT very well have identified Mr. Holmes as an unfit person. Proper laws about multiple sales or 100-round magazines MIGHT very well have stopped him before he acted.”
In truth, they wouldn’t have, that’s why you had to use the qualifier “might” isn’t it? The truth is, someone like me, with a CCW permit would have ended it right there. Oh, that’s right, the Cineplex rules prohibit law abiding citizens to be armed in their movie theaters. Do you think the mass murdering puke in Aurora MIGHT have known that, and that’s why he chose that place to commit his despicable crime(s)?
“What you guys fear is that your personal precious rights might be interfered with. You are so concerned with that that you would rather have guys like Holmes and Loughner buying guns legally.”
What you didn’t say was, “”What you guys fear is that your CONSTITUTIONAL rights WOULD be interfered with.” What a burden it must be to people like you, that a collection of men much wiser than you’ll ever be, put the 2nd amendment in there in the first place. As to your last sentence, your conceit and ignorance is exceeded only by your thoughtless and profound lack of comportment. That you thought so little about the victims of these horrible crimes just to score some cheap points off their deaths, shows the levels to which you and your ilk will sink to justify your woefully inept position regarding firearms and their proper legal uses.
Has it escaped your myopic view that these mass murdering pricks don’t try to carry-out their shooting sprees in places they know people can shoot back? Doh!
Wait a minute…are you the same MikeB who posts similar inanities at National Review Online? If you are, you’re not a troll, you’re a Trojan horse full of liberal malware pretending to be a thoughtful and reasonable American. Twice the FAIL!
And to think you guys at TTAG gave this anti-gun liberal an editorial berth here without a proper background check? The only question is, why?
You’re right on target Azimuth, and you can’t reason with “MULTIPLE FLAMES DELETED” because they’re morons. (I’ll just keep flame deleting myself because I’m pissed and RF has enough crap to deal with) Sad part is I had some really good FLAMES. I think we should have a FLAME THE NO GOOD COMMIE TROLLS day, and everyone can let loose on those fools. I’m just reffering to TROLLS in general so this part doesn’t count as a FLAME.
@George!!! By the way: Low intelligence and mental instability do not go hand in hand with poverty!!! I am considered in the poverty level for the US average because I only make $35000 a year before any withholdings!!!
Not mentally unstable nor of low intelligence!!! As part of a promotion at my job 5 years ago I was required to take a college level IQ test!! Now we all know these are very general tests but I don’t think that a score of 135 would qualify me as mentally unstable or of low intelligence!!!!
Apparently you are of a British Blue Blood Royalty Lineage still angry because your dumbasses couldn’t keep us under your thumbs!!!
Just my honest opinion!!!!
A lower enlisted soldier in the US military also doesn’t make 35,000 a year. Would a trained, loyal, experienced US Army soldier be too poor and stupid to purchase a firearm?
Startling logic George. Im a wealthy person and I find that disgusting.
Shame on you, MikeB, for exercising your 1st Amendment rights. Free speech was what allowed Karl Marx’s Das Kapital to be written. Communism was the result, and it’s killed TENS OF MILLIONS.
Shame on you.
Daniel, you gotta try to be a bit more dramatic about it.
He is not being dramatic, he hit the nail on the head!!! I myself spent 2 weeks in Russia in 1986 and have personally seen elderly people standing in line for days on end to get a loaf of bread!!!
Guess you are either too young to know about these things or just choose to ignore them because they don’t fit your agenda!!!
Just one example of what happens when you allow your government to over rule the people!!!
Too much government leads to too little freedom!!! Has been proven many many times!!!!
would allowing people to carry gun into the theatre changed his resolve to kill? possibly but most likely not as once the mind is completely determined to kill people, the method will change but the end result remains unchanged.
punishing those of us that are good because of a few that did horrible things is indeed a treacherous road to travel. by that logic alone, everything that we all know and love; pro gun, anti gun and those undecided; would be taken from us. because there are things out there that someone, somewhere finds to be a completely terrible thing.
after reading the tom kratman article posted by savaze above, a question came to mind.
the last time a constitutional amendment that had as high a level of emotion around it as the second amendment was repealed there was a violent, horrible war. that was over cheap labor (slavery). what do you believe will be the consequences of the government repealing the second amendment?
I think MikeB needs to get an award for getting the most replys than any other contribitor! HOLY COW thats a lot of replys!
He certainly makes a splash every time he contributes. Sorry I missed out on most of the feeding frenzy.
Yeah, but in all fairness, they’re 50% personal attacks, which kinda supports my other theory about you gun guys being mainly insecure men who can’t stand a differing opinion.
Again, I find myself in agreement with you, MikeB.
MikeB, is your blog devoid of personal attacks? Not by a long shot.
I didn’t know getting called out on your bullshit constitutes a personal attack…
If you are that concerned about personal attacks, dont worry. its the internet. The words on the computer screen will not hurt you.
,
âCalling the ATF for âwar gearâ? LMFAO!!! Im sorry, but that is ridiculous. With such a law, you should also call the ATF if I purchase a bunch of hemp satchels because I can store magazines in there. â
Sorry we disagree on this one. Iâve seen enough people at the range with this shit for no other reason than they think it makes them look cool and they have a mall ninja mentality. The stuff is unnecessary and is frowned on my most normal people because wearing this shit when you are not law enforcement or army is insane. Not to mention the damage it does to us everyday folk who carry for self defense but are painted with the same brush as some gun nut with a gut at the range wearing camo vests and tactical gear even though he is standing gut up to a table and trying his darned best NOT to hide.
âDude, war gear is pieces of nylon sewn together to hold magazines, equipment, etc etc. I suppose if I bought satchels and backpacks at REI or Old Navy, I should get checked out too. bahahahaha!â
Well pardon me if I want to make sure that the guy standing in my doorway with all this gear on is actually law enforcement or SWAT. One officer said he almost thought he was a member of the SWAT team. Thatâs normal to you, is it? I find it funny there are laws against impersonating a police officer yet you find his attire acceptable. Interesting.
âWhat do I have to hide? nothing. That is not the point. The idea of âyou dont have nothing to hide, right?â is childish and stupid, not to mention it is anti-america. Its called the bill of rights.â
Childish and stupid? How so? It is silly to be a person who is proud of having nothing to fear in terms of reprimand or justice? Again, interesting. Anti-America? How so? Everything you do is tracked. Has been for a long time. What America are you from? South? Ah, there it is. Lean on the bill when it supports the argument. I was waiting for it. The bill of rights is good and great. Itâs fantastic. Just donât do anything stupid… you tend to be sent to places where they laugh at that statement.
âThose that give up essential liberty for little or no temporary safety deserve neitherâ -ben franklin
Uh huh… completely relevant to the convo. Thanks for that.
âYou are making a assumption of lunacy on your part. I didnât read anything about him being weird; you are taking the appearances in the courtroom and drawing to wrong conclusions. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-shooting-denver-profilebre86m02a-20120723,0,1051907.story
He was shy, quiet, though was perceived as a otherwise normal citizen. he was not in and out of trouble as a youth, did not mutiliate animals, and didnât grow up in poverty. No wonder he wasnât declared mentally unfit to buy a firearmâŚ.â
The I guess thatâs the difference in you and I. I have read two things that set me off about him. He was described as odd and liking to listen to the same song over and over or play the same song over and over. To an extent where people felt uncomfortable. A gun range member phoned him and got his machine only to hear guttural and disturbing sounds that made him decide that he was not a person fit for his range. Normal? Only to those to who turn a blind eye. Iâve known enough of these people in high school to see them either kill themselves or the girl they are infatuated with to take note. Iâve had friends act just like this guy kill themselves. We were only lucky thatâs all they did.
I am not drawing conclusions about his court appearance. I didnât even read about it. I looked at his picture to see what color his hair was dyed. I always thought the jokers hair to be green. I made the conclusion that he was a lunatic when I heard he shot 12 people to death.
âand how would you know about his quirks? (that people that knew him seem to fail to mention)â
Read above. There are numerous reports on how somehow they all thought he was normal but took note of his âoffâ manner.
âNo, you are drawing into wrong conclusions. He was not declared insane. you are making a half-assed assumption that he is insane.â
And again, you are drawing the wrong conclusion that I am speaking in a literal sense. I deem anyone who kills anyone else for no apparent or rational reason insane, not to mention a crowd of people. It may not match up with scientific definitions or your thinking of insane but that matters nothing to me. Anyone who is unstable and prone to acts of violence I file away as insane and want no contact with. Itâs common sense really.
âIm saying that we do not know the facts. You also need to study other serial killers. Many of them are ordinary people living ordinary lives that commit unspeakable crimes simply because they can. They are, however, completely rational. I think you need to do some homework on what âinsanityâ is.â
Why do I need to study serial killers? This guy isnât a serial killer from the reports we have read. He is clean, remember? To be a serial killer he would have to strike over and over again over a period of time. To play out the game so to speak. This guy wanted a quick bust. He is nowhere near the intelligence of a serial killer. He is just smart. Maybe you should do your homework on what a serial killer is.
To reiterate. I use insane as a definition of his actions. Not from what his head is doing. Itâs a commonly used term. No need to read into it too much. It doesnât help your argument. Maybe we will find out later that he did some things in the past… but that is for the future to tell.
âA sit down with federal agents? for what exactly?â
To talk. To go over what you intend to use the gun for. Just a chat. Many loons would be kept from guns they donât need I think. My gun range is a testament to that. The meth heads I had the pleasure of standing beside at an open range in Oregon are a testament to that.
âEverybody knows the healthcare system is broken, but that is a entirely different argument for another day.â
Really? I disagree. I think it is very relevant to this argument. Standard screenings and testing would have probably caught some of this before it happened. Who knows?
âPlease tell me how any more legislation would have prevented this tragedy. Im listening and I cannot wait to hear thisâ
If you read my last post you would have realized that I said I wouldnât know how to go about it. Just that if I did I would be very wealthy and hated. My point was that something needs to change. This isnât working.
Dex says:
July 24, 2012 at 00:49
âyou apparently got a facetious reply. How many of those 20mmâs are causing problems for public safety in the US? I havent heard of one. If he keeps it locked in his safe and is responsible in its use, then how does that affect you? (PS wear earpro)â
I was wearing earpro (plugs and electronic muffs). You still are concussed when not ready for a blast like that two tables over from you (my glasses actually lifted from my head). The fact that you think it is acceptable weaponry is an example of what I spoke of. People take it too far. You will then cry on the 2nd amendment when your constant pushing of the barriers of law takes away from us normal folks the right to have a handgun, shotgun or rifle for hunting or personal defense.
âIt would be good for smashing rocks two miles away for one.â
So is dynamite and a hammer. See above.
âHow about the douch at my local range with a gun that he can barely heft with both hands? Forget the name of it but it was a revolver that he couldnât even lift for extended periods of time. Let alone hit anything called a grouping. He couldnât wear it on his hip. He couldnât conceal it on his person for public wear. The only thing he could do was put it in a bag and take it out when needed. What would you call that type of gun? Iâd call it a toy.â
âagain, how is that affecting you?â
How? It is affecting me because people like that keep new people away from the shooting sports. Most people can handle a .22 for starters but when they are at an indoor range and someone fires a cannon it tends to bring down repeat customers and up the attitude that all people with guns are dangerous and over the top. Also firing a gun that causes you to stagger backward two or three steps while you are waving it all around in your limp wrists and laughing like an idiot (even though you have missed the target 20 feet away and put a new hole in the roof) kind of comes across as a health hazard to me. Just saying…
âim not sure why one would need night vision, but thats freedom baby. Why do I drive a Porsche? because I simply can.â
Iâm not sure either but there is it. Would you have that same porche if it were not legal to use it on any roads that were not monitored (tracks and whatnot)? I doubt it.
âIve seen people with toys and have them myself. What is the problem with toys?â
Toys are great. Itâs the dangerous ones that drive peoples ill perception of an entire population that irk me.
âSounds like a case of jealousy and envy to me. BTW, before you respond with a mall ninja comment, I am a combat veteran and business owner. Everybody has hobbies; mine happens to be guns.â
How so? I have all the toys I want gun-wise. Iâve got my XDm for carry. Iâve got my semi-auto shotty. Iâve got my Mossy rifle. I don;t have my Mark 23 yet but give it a half year or so. Iâm not sure why I would respond with a mall ninja comment… are you a mall ninja? Thatâs great you are a combat vet… thanks for the service. My shooting buddy is a former Marine. I should point out that he leaves his guns at home when we go out. He feels that there is too much attention on gun owners and that they are looked on with much scorn as of late. He believes that my having a young kid with me is the only saving grace if I have to shoot someone while out and about in the city. He believes that if he defends himself outside his home he is going to prison. Sad indeed. Gun nuts have made it this way. He is in agreement with me on this. People are taking it too far and when things go too far the government tends to take it back. I should also add that my hobby just happens to be guns. I love guns. I just donât think they are for everybody.
Oh…what a tragedy. Did you contact the range master? Ill recommend a beautiful combo of Peltor plugs along with a headset. No more jackhammer treatment for you.
So, again, using your “logic”, when I orchestrate a protest through twitter, that is “taking my rights too far”?
Freedom seems to be such a alien concept for you. Control freak much? Don’t worry, im a gun owner with multiple “dangerous” toys and I am your friend…
As long as im not hurting anybody else or endangering anything, the 20mm would be funner. Freedom, once again. Btw, it is harder to obtain dynamite than a firearm I can guarantee that.
And where im from, shooting a hole in the roof and drawing other customers away would get them kicked out. I think you are exaggerating. From my experience, cool toys seem to attract a small crowd, especially amongst the novice shooters.
I would keep the Porsche and drive it up and down unmonitored roads come hell or high water (I can afford the fines). Its a porsche dude! XD
So you embark on some brave crusade to save the public from dangerous toys? since drowning is a huge problem and so is medical malpractice, Im going to assume by your logic that you want to ban jet skiing and skateboards too. Again, freedom baby.
I wouldnt appreciate you firing that shotgun in a indoor range. Its dangerous and loud (LOL). Im just joshing. Donate plasma, sell your furniture, and do whatever it takes to buy a mark 23. It will be worth every penny.
Reading the shrine of a mall ninja, sadly, i fail to fit into the criteria. I dont duck tape ballistic plates on my back to stop 338 lapua bullets, nor have I ever saved the mayor’s son’s virginity. I have failed you in that regard. đ
Gun owners…scorn? damn that is a shame. Ill let you in on a secret too: I dont carry 100% of the time; theres nothing wrong with that.
I disagree that gun nuts are the blame. I think guns are becoming more “socially acceptable” than they were before. In fact, the economy has helped push otherwise apathetic citizens to buy a gun, train with it, and even get a concealed carry permit. I personally believe using your guns to make a political statement is in bad taste, though it is okay if you arent harming others.
Ill have to agree that guns arent for everybody. There are dumbasses that can buy guns and they frequently shoot them. There are also complete dumbasses that protest and dumbasses that are protected from unreasonable search and seizure, even though their privacy conceals a crime. There are especially dumbasses that can vote. Dumbassery is part of the double edged sword of freedom.
Dex says:
July 24, 2012 at 03:31
âOhâŚwhat a tragedy. Did you contact the range master? Ill recommend a beautiful combo of Peltor plugs along with a headset. No more jackhammer treatment for you.â
No. I left. Wouldnât want to infringe on anyoneâs freedom to be an inconsiderate ass.
âSo, again, using your âlogicâ, when I orchestrate a protest through twitter, that is âtaking my rights too farâ?â
You having a drink? I have no idea how you came to this conclusion.
âFreedom seems to be such a alien concept for you. Control freak much? Donât worry, im a gun owner with multiple âdangerousâ toys and I am your friendâŚâ
No. Freedom is actually a very familiar concept to me. I choose to exercise it in a way that doesnât rock the boat or hazard those freedoms being scrutinized and eventually taken away. I donât know how I am a control freak. I will caulk it up to you looking for some kind of reaction. You may be a gun owner with mulitple dangerous toys, so I am I, but those I deem my friend in the shooting sports are helping further itâs reputation as a sensible, well thought out practice. You can have your gun nuttery and continue to rail against those that think you an idiot. Itâs fine. Iâll mark you down as yet another that will bitch and moan when the government does step in and you cry on the bills and rights you have taunted and jeered to gain such unfavorable notice.
âAs long as im not hurting anybody else or endangering anything, the 20mm would be funner. Freedom, once again. Btw, it is harder to obtain dynamite than a firearm I can guarantee that.â
Yes, itâs all about fun. And cool too! Oh, shiny! Freedom for sure.
âAnd where im from, shooting a hole in the roof and drawing other customers away would get them kicked out. I think you are exaggerating. From my experience, cool toys seem to attract a small crowd, especially amongst the novice shooters.â
Thatâs great that that happens in your location. Mine too if you step away from the gun nut range and pop into the less used one 30 minutes away. From my experience it draws in the one-time idiots who are just too into Call of Duty. There is no exaggerating. If I ever head back there I will photo the roof for you. I think the thousands of large holes in it will set you straight.
âI would keep the Porsche and drive it up and down unmonitored roads come hell or high water (I can afford the fines). Its a porsche dude! XDâ
Havenât been a Porsche man myself since the early 90âs when they made them good. More of a Mercedes guy now.
âSo you embark on some brave crusade to save the public from dangerous toys? since drowning is a huge problem and so is medical malpractice, Im going to assume by your logic that you want to ban jet skiing and skateboards too. Again, freedom baby.â
No. I embark on no such crusade. I simply try and draw those that want to shoot to a place where I feel they will feel safe and not be intimidated. Letâs not confuse accidents with blatant disregard for others safety and dangerous practices. P.S. I love jet skiing… quads have my heart though.
âI wouldn’t appreciate you firing that shotgun in a indoor range. Its dangerous and loud (LOL). Im just joshing. Donate plasma, sell your furniture, and do whatever it takes to buy a mark 23. It will be worth every penny.â
No, you wouldnât. Which is why I donât do it anymore. I used to when I first started out because I had nowhere else to fire it and that even was only for a limited time. Outside is much nicer with clays. I know all about the Mark 23. I will have it, Sir! Do you have the pleasure of owning one?
âReading the shrine of a mall ninja, sadly, i fail to fit into the criteria. I dont duck tape ballistic plates on my back to stop 338 lapua bullets, nor have I ever saved the mayorâs sonâs virginity. I have failed you in that regard. â
Good. This failure is good.
âGun ownersâŚscorn? damn that is a shame. Ill let you in on a secret too: I dont carry 100% of the time; theres nothing wrong with that.â
Hey… itâs just how he feels. I carry all the time because the city I live in has a massive amount of black on white crime and obviously far more blacks then whites. If I were a single male I wouldnât carry all the time either. But my little girl is worth my discomfort and life style change.
âI disagree that gun nuts are the blame. I think guns are becoming more âsocially acceptableâ than they were before. In fact, the economy has helped push otherwise apathetic citizens to buy a gun, train with it, and even get a concealed carry permit. I personally believe using your guns to make a political statement is in bad taste, though it is okay if you arent harming others.â
And thatâs okay. I think they are becoming more socially acceptable as well. Just not as fast and by whom that matters. I have also recognize that the economy has spurred sales, this is good. However, for me and what I have seen, it does not spur those same people to train and carry that weapon. It is a decision made in fear for most of the new gun owners I know. I will also tell you that they do not like heading to ranges less then an hour from where we live because of gun nuts and potentially unsafe conditions.
âIll have to agree that guns arent for everybody. There are dumbasses that can buy guns and they frequently shoot them. There are also complete dumbasses that protest and dumbasses that are protected from unreasonable search and seizure, even though their privacy conceals a crime. There are especially dumbasses that can vote. Dumbassery is part of the double edged sword of freedomâ
Guns are not for everybody. We can agree. And yes, Dumbassery and the less prevalent Asshattery are a bane that comes with this sword of freedom.
Well, to shorten the responses and avoid another essay, I can compromise with you that assdouchery is a serious problem.
Dont get me wrong, I think there are bundles of stupid morons that can own guns.
I just dont think more legislation is the solution, especially since such legislation has not been proven to work in the first place.
You didn’t address my point. If a mall ninja likes to wear a tactical vest on a range, then how is that hurting you? it doesn’t. get over it. Would you impose such scrutiny for people that collect military memorabilia? probably not (hopefully not). I dont know how to help you if sewed nylon pieces somehow frighten and offend you.
It is unnecessary for you, but since we live in a free enterprise nation, it may be necessary for somebody else. I like “war gear” such as a go bag, assault pack, camelbak, and MOLLE vest because they are extremely practical for hiking with the MOLLE vest and pockets very practical for shooting on my ranch. im not wearing full battle rattle, walking around town, and screaming for obama’s impeachment and neither are millions of other people with such “war gear”. Since the economic situation is rather dire in this country right now, it doesn’t hurt to have body armor to defend my property (which grows food). Ill also give you a clue that Im also not a militant nut; my neighbors and family friends are registered democrats and also have a healthy collection of “war gear”.
That is a faulty argument. there are laws against impersonating a police officer, though these laws didn’t deter this animal from committing this horrible crime. Go figure. You can also impersonate military personnel and other authority figures. Do you want to take Russia’s route and ban military uniforms?
Its childish and stupid because of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. I have a right to not have my telecommunications monitored, being searched illegally, or some other heinous violation of my rights just because serving the purpose of security, perpetuated by the idea of chasing phantom terrorists, seems to be more important by the tyrannical control freak statists. Of course statists wouldnt understand this.
The point is not that im afraid of getting caught doing anything illegal (Im proudly a law abiding citizen), though when you give people in power a inch when it comes to rights, they take a foot. drawing a line in the sand and defending your rights forces them to remember that they are public servants. I was one of countless citizens that protested the Patriot Act; so much for choosing and picking bills.
Im from Montana and the patriot act allows otherwise unconstitutional things to occur daily. Americans have lost their rights in pursuit of national security. Just because they do it, that doesnt mean I have to agree with it or support it.
Do I need to draw a picture? regulating “war gear” is a stupid knee jerk reaction that infringes upon personal liberty. Oh…it happens to be a violation of the freedom of expression (1st amendment).
Jesus christ dude. are you serious or are you just trolling? plenty of children are described as “odd” and listen to the same song over and over again. My daughter used to listen to Blink 182’s song All the Small Things over and over again LOL.
And you are taking one example and running to the goalpost with it. The fact is that he was not designated as mentally unfit. He was a very ordinary and model citizen. That is what is so disturbing.
You didn’t make the conclusion until after he committed the crime. That is the problem. I can understand your position if he was admitted into psychiatric care for homicidal tendencies then released, but that is not the case. The court will find him mentally fit to stand trial. Stop using emotionalism and stick with the facts presented.
haha, there is a difference between what you think and what a psychiatrist and court will think. There is a huge difference between the two. He was also not unstable and prone to violence before the shooting in the eyes of his peers and certainly not by the state. that is why his purchases were lawful.
You are spinning and playing on the “serial killer” definition. I dont believe he is insane. he should be held 100% accountable for his crimes.
Im sticking to what the court and a psychiatrist will define as insane thank you very much. your assertion that he murdered those people because he was “insane” is drawing to wrong conclusions. Many murderers are not insane and they perfectly rationalized their actions and executed their plan.
âA sit down with federal agents? for what exactly?â
To talk. To go over what you intend to use the gun for. Just a chat. Many loons would be kept from guns they donât need I think. My gun range is a testament to that. The meth heads I had the pleasure of standing beside at an open range in Oregon are a testament to that.
To talk and go over what the gun will be used for? You do realize that the FBI is experiencing record background checks right? They cannot effectively monitor the mental thoughts of thousands of gun buyers every month. you are simply asking for the impossible. Believe me, if they invented a wonderful machine to weed out people like this and separate them from law abiding citizens, then I would support it. There is no such thing.
Thats too bad that you saw “meth heads” at the range. Are you 100% sure, or does your “common sense” reveal this “fact” to you?
and the question I ask is what would warrant standard screenings and testing? he was a otherwise normal person to his peers. Like I said before, it wasn’t like he was walking around in circles, banging his head on a telephone pole in front of on lookers or other obvious signs of something wrong.
If you read my last post you would have realized that I said I wouldnât know how to go about it. Just that if I did I would be very wealthy and hated. My point was that something needs to change. This isnât working.
What exactly isn’t working? you keep making vague, emotional assertions devoid of any rationality and empirical evidence. http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm
The fact is that gun violence, overall in the US, is dropping, alongside the violent crime rate. It is a fact that the assault weapon ban didn’t work and city/state bans on firearms certainly dont work.
All guns will not disappear in the US or elsewhere around the world. Since bans are expensive, ineffective, and infringing on our Bill of Rights, I dont see them as necessary. Using your “common sense”, why would you ban something in that case? Just because?
You’re going to have to do better than that, otherwise I wont respond; ill conclude that you’re just trolling.
âDex says:
July 24, 2012 at 02:58
You didnât address my point. If a mall ninja likes to wear a tactical vest on a range, then how is that hurting you? it doesnât. get over it. Would you impose such scrutiny for people that collect military memorabilia? probably not (hopefully not). I dont know how to help you if sewed nylon pieces somehow frighten and offend you. â
Itâs okay. You didnât address many of mine. No biggie. The mall ninja doesnât hurt me. He does however frighten and intimidate those that are new to guns that have the unfortunate memory of meeting or seeing the idiot. I am over the mall ninja at the range. The large fat guy with a camo vest that doesnât cover him or hide him is more of a peeve to me. He does upset those I try to bring to the range to learn that guns are ânot bad, Mmmmkayyyyâ. I love military memorabilia! Love it! What does that have to do with mall ninjas? Sewn nylon doesnât offend me. Itâs the person that is wearing it to intimidate that does.
âIt is unnecessary for you, but since we live in a free enterprise nation, it may be necessary for somebody else. I like âwar gearâ such as a go bag, assault pack, camelbak, and MOLLE vest because they are extremely practical for hiking with the MOLLE vest and pockets very practical for shooting on my ranch. im not wearing full battle rattle, walking around town, and screaming for obamaâs impeachment and neither are millions of other people with such âwar gearâ. Since the economic situation is rather dire in this country right now, it doesnât hurt to have body armor to defend my property (which grows food). Ill also give you a clue that Im also not a militant nut; my neighbors and family friends are registered democrats and also have a healthy collection of âwar gearâ.â
No, actually it is necessary for me at times, when appropriate. I have three go bags. Two in the house for me and wife and one in the car. They contains all the basics. I see nothing wrong with being prepared. A camelbak is a great tool. I have used one since the late 90âs for hiking and mainly mountain biking. The Molle vest I use less then the rest. I only use it for hunting. I see no other reason to have it on. You may not be doing all those things, no. But it sure looks like you are once the antis and media turn and twist it to suit the sheepâs thoughts. It does not hurt anybody to have body armor. It is the purchase for me right after the Mark 23. I do, however think it a little off to have it on all the time. Though that can be debated. Some people wear it all the time. To each their own. Congrats on the food. Mine grows it as well. More so because of recent occurrences in our lives that have opened our eyes a great deal but it has always been a fun hobby turned everyday thing for us.
Itâs good you are not a militant nut. Much safer for you too. Gman donât like those types. I can say I disagree with the political affiliation though.
âThat is a faulty argument. there are laws against impersonating a police officer, though these laws didnât deter this animal from committing this horrible crime. Go figure. You can also impersonate military personnel and other authority figures. Do you want to take Russiaâs route and ban military uniforms?â
No, there are laws and that did not stop him but it seemingly is how you came across when you saw nothing wrong with that because he could and it was his right. On your ranch, yes. In a theatre, no. If someone is not SWAT or Police and they are dressed that way in my vicinity, I will remove myself if possible. That or other actions will be taken. See where I am going here? A person has the right to wear it, yes. When are where they wear it is often not appropriate or lawful.
âIts childish and stupid because of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. I have a right to not have my telecommunications monitored, being searched illegally, or some other heinous violation of my rights just because serving the purpose of security, perpetuated by the idea of chasing phantom terrorists, seems to be more important by the tyrannical control freak statists. Of course statists wouldnt understand this.â
I am with you in your belief and what you are standing for. I truly am. I however am not turning a blind eye to the dissemination of my information to near every branch of government and even the private sector. I truly donât believe that there is privacy anymore. No matter what brought it about. Unless you live in the woods with no phone, Internet or outside contact you are on the logs.
âThe point is not that im afraid of getting caught doing anything illegal (Im proudly a law abiding citizen), though when you give people in power a inch when it comes to rights, they take a foot. drawing a line in the sand and defending your rights forces them to remember that they are public servants. I was one of countless citizens that protested the Patriot Act; so much for choosing and picking bills.â
I agree. I just think that more âsenseâ’ and âsubtletyâ need be applied when exercising oneâs rights.
âIm from Montana and the patriot act allows otherwise unconstitutional things to occur daily. Americans have lost their rights in pursuit of national security. Just because they do it, that doesnt mean I have to agree with it or support it. â
Montana is beautiful. I agree that Americans have lost much of their rights for the same reason. But that is the power of the sheep. The herd get the fear down inside and run. The Sheppard can do nothing but guide them to a more favorable state for him and him alone. Sometimes the Sheppard does this purposely.
âDo I need to draw a picture? regulating âwar gearâ is a stupid knee jerk reaction that infringes upon personal liberty. OhâŚit happens to be a violation of the freedom of expression (1st amendment).â
That may be so. I still disagree with the blurring of people looking like authority figures. Especially since where I live folks are being robbed in their homes by no knock imitation police and DEA.
âJesus christ dude. are you serious or are you just trolling? plenty of children are described as âoddâ and listen to the same song over and over again. My daughter used to listen to Blink 182â˛s song All the Small Things over and over again LOL. â
Nope, not trolling. We just disagree. Good song too â I love it. She may have listened to it over and over but did it make you uncomfortable. I know the guy they described. A high school friend who is no longer with us was a template for this guy. He would listen to Smack My Bitch up by the Prodigy for hours and stare off into space with an expression that told everyone to leave him â that he was no longer on planet Earth. We spoke to the school councilor. He spoke to some doctors and later in the week blew his guts out in the street in front of his mother and grandmother. Turns out he was already talking with the homeroom teacher about killing himself and had done it many times (the talking obviously) and the home room teacher turned a blind eye and passed it off as teenage against. Again, I am sorry if you disagree but I think our two different upbringings have created two different people that see things differently.
âAnd you are taking one example and running to the goalpost with it. The fact is that he was not designated as mentally unfit. He was a very ordinary and model citizen. That is what is so disturbing.â
It is disturbing. I believe the model needs to be looked at. Thatâs what I am saying. The model doesnât catch enough of these folk.
âYou didnât make the conclusion until after he committed the crime. That is the problem. I can understand your position if he was admitted into psychiatric care for homicidal tendencies then released, but that is not the case. The court will find him mentally fit to stand trial. Stop using emotionalism and stick with the facts presented.â
I am not using emotionalism. The fact is he killed 12 people. He is gone. Toast. Kaput!
âhaha, there is a difference between what you think and what a psychiatrist and court will think. There is a huge difference between the two. He was also not unstable and prone to violence before the shooting in the eyes of his peers and certainly not by the state. that is why his purchases were lawful.â
There is a difference. That is their professional opinion that does nothing to make my life nor those around me safer. Him being deemed fit to stand for trial does not make him someone who is not unstable and dangerous. He is crazy. If he is not, his actions were. And that, in this scenario, is worse because his actions define him as crazy. Not his mind. You get where I am coming from here? The end result is the same, the rest is just banter and semantics.
Ditto on the purchases.
âYou are spinning and playing on the âserial killerâ definition. I dont believe he is insane. he should be held 100% accountable for his crimes.â
I donât know if he is insane or not. But I will file him away as such based on his actions. I also want him accountable for his crimes.
âIm sticking to what the court and a psychiatrist will define as insane thank you very much. your assertion that he murdered those people because he was âinsaneâ is drawing to wrong conclusions. Many murderers are not insane and they perfectly rationalized their actions and executed their plan. â
We are beating a dead horse here. You can stand by your definitions. I will stand by common sense and label those I deem dangerous however I please. I will call him insane. I will call him crazy. I will call him nucking futs as well.
To talk and go over what the gun will be used for? You do realize that the FBI is experiencing record background checks right? They cannot effectively monitor the mental thoughts of thousands of gun buyers every month. you are simply asking for the impossible. Believe me, if they invented a wonderful machine to weed out people like this and separate them from law abiding citizens, then I would support it. There is no such thing.
Yep. Hire more guys. Get the economy going. They can if they try. They are monitoring this conversation. Nothing is impossible and we can strive for it.
âThats too bad that you saw âmeth headsâ at the range. Are you 100% sure, or does your âcommon senseâ reveal this âfactâ to you?â
Positive. They have a unique smell and look that only people cooking or using meth have. Being escorted from the range by an officer was a tip off too.
âand the question I ask is what would warrant standard screenings and testing? he was a otherwise normal person to his peers. Like I said before, it wasnât like he was walking around in circles, banging his head on a telephone pole in front of on lookers or other obvious signs of something wrong. â
Again, I have no answer for you. I am not an expert. I only assert that this isnât working.
âWhat exactly isnât working? you keep making vague, emotional assertions devoid of any rationality and empirical evidence. http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htmâ
Gun crime. Outbursts of rage in our public places that affect thousands. Maybe the answer is really simple. Either everyone carries or no one carries. I donât know. I just know this isnât working.
âThe fact is that gun violence, overall in the US, is dropping, alongside the violent crime rate. It is a fact that the assault weapon ban didnât work and city/state bans on firearms certainly dont work.â
This is true. But those that are dead each and everyday would disagree.
âAll guns will not disappear in the US or elsewhere around the world. Since bans are expensive, ineffective, and infringing on our Bill of Rights, I dont see them as necessary. Using your âcommon senseâ, why would you ban something in that case? Just because?â
They wonât and I hope not. I want nothing banned.
âYouâre going to have to do better than that, otherwise I wont respond; ill conclude that youâre just trolling.â
Meh. Take it as you will.
I want to know more about these 100 round magazines.
They are expensive and prone to jamming. My state doesn’t allow anything over 30 so they are no fun for me.
dont buy them, waste of money. finnicky, unreliable, and expensive. Stay away from the 60 round quad stack magazines too.
@MikeB302000…you just like everyone else in this discussion are entitled to your opinions!!! So it is just my opinion when I say that you are really just a scared little boy wanting someone of higher authority to take care of you and watch over you just so you won’t have to!!!
You simply want to live in your sheltered little bubble of a world and tell us how wonderful and joyous it would be if we all lived like you do!!!!
Sorry but not my idea of Life, Liberty and Freedom!!!
Am not going to call you an ambulance chaser like someone else did earlier, would hate to insult an ambulance chaser like that!!!
Grow up, get a life, and maybe one of these days you will realize that the Big Bad Old World is Not out to get you!!!
God Bless You and have a wonderful life!!!
“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” – Thomas Jefferson
Comments are closed.