Newtown revisited.

martentrapper

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
4,486
Reaction score
324
Location
Fairbanks, Ak.
But that doesn't mitigate the responsibility of those that put their own desire for fast and convenient access to firearms above the safety and security of others (yep, flame away).

Are there not times when fast and convenient access to firearms achieve safety and security for us and others? Would reducing the current "fast and convenient" access to firearms by law abiding citizens achieve any reduction in loss of life from firearms?
 

AlaskaHippie

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
3,957
Reaction score
724
Location
K.Bay
Are there not times when fast and convenient access to firearms achieve safety and security for us and others? Would reducing the current "fast and convenient" access to firearms by law abiding citizens achieve any reduction in loss of life from firearms?

If you're in that great a need of safety, wouldn't that be the reason to contact law enforcement?
And if one was issued a firearms license that meant they demonstrated the responsibility, knowledge, and mental capacity to purchase and own said firearm, would that not remove the need for a waiting period?
 

MontanaRifleman

New member
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
3,071
Reaction score
147
If you're in that great a need of safety, wouldn't that be the reason to contact law enforcement?
And if one was issued a firearms license that meant they demonstrated the responsibility, knowledge, and mental capacity to purchase and own said firearm, would that not remove the need for a waiting period?

When seconds count, LE is only minutes away...

And that's not slamming LE... that's just a fact

A firearms license might "sound" like a good idea on the "surface", but when ever you get a bureaucrat in the process, the devil is in the details.

I don't have any warm fuzzies bout the government determining my ability, responsibility and need of owning a firearm. No government agency (and I worked for Uncle Sam 18 years) has ever shown me they have my best interest, welfare and prosperity as their goal.
 

Music Man

New member
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
79
Location
ANC
If you're in that great a need of safety, wouldn't that be the reason to contact law enforcement?
And if one was issued a firearms license that meant they demonstrated the responsibility, knowledge, and mental capacity to purchase and own said firearm, would that not remove the need for a waiting period?

"When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away." what part of this don't you understand?
 

cod

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
2,574
Reaction score
186
Location
Kenai Peninsula, Ak.
Hippie, Your attempts at insult aside, I will attempt to remain above the fray. My intention from my posts, as I said earlier was to examine the logic and thought process that is used when an OP (in this case Hippie) starts a discussion and half explains his position. As soon as someone begins to dig further and/or asks more questions of the poster's position, they often refuse to follow their own logic to its conclusion. It is simply my position that the reason for such avoidance is because the poster realizes his dilema. It is often just emotional nonlogical bluster.
I'll repost below Hippie and you may, or may not wish to read and/or answer the posted questions which you have claimed you did not "skirt". As I said earlier, I'm not trying to 'change' your mind. But I am trying to make a pt. If you want to promote the logic of the attempted laws that are to be introduced, I think you should be prepared to defend those promotions-with answers and logic.
ps........hope you had a good Easter..........peace.....cod


quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by cod
Thanks for the response........ I see there is some common ground. U agree that new legislation will "likely not" prevent another Sandy Hook. Thats good.



HIPPIE........."No, it is certainly NOT good. It is a sad statement on our society.''

COD....."You have brought into your discussion drunk driving and its laws........So question..... Do u equate the importance of a set of laws on a 'priviledge' such as driving the same as you would putting restriction on a 'right' that is specifically mentioned as an amendment in the COUS? Or, do u recognize the significant difference?"


HIPPIE....."I've stated time and again that I in no way support a ban on firearms, magazines, etc.
I do have no umbrage with UBC, as it in no way puts any restrictions on responsible gun owners from purchasing or possesing firearms."
COD......"So from your last sentence..."but lack the responsibility in securing it from those with nefarious intentions"....... I take it that u would agree also that, as in the other cases where the 'responsible parties' (the ones who broke existing laws) ---That these new 'responsible parties' that the "new laws" would then cover, would ALSO break those new laws? And if that being the case, you would agree that new laws would NOT be to STOP or PREVENT the killings, or that, really, its not about being able to 'save childrens' lives at all. But more of being able to prosecute and hold accountable those who already assisted a killing rampage?"


HIPPIE......."cod, you can try to waltz around and switchback the conversation all you like, it won't alter the crux of my stance.
New laws would be a deterrent, it would put folks on notice and all your "quotation marks" and "twisting of my meaning" won't change the reality that status quo has failed and failed miserably. Maybe the majority here is OK with what happened at Sandy Hook, I am not. Nor am I okay with the rhetoric from some who feel that their rights are being infringed by proposals of registration and background checks, which they are not. To those folks I profer this, when the next Sandy Hook occurs, that blood will be on the hands of those who put petty politics above the lives of innocents."
COD......."Appreciate your time to answer.......! and in full disclosure ,,,I am a lifetime NRA member."


HIPPIE......."Not a problem at all, I've enjoyed many of your posts, and appreciate that you do your best to keep the discussion on point.
In the interest of full disclosure, I used to be a member of the NRA, but found the rhetoric they spew to not be something I wish association with."​
 

Rod in Wasilla

Active member
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
896
Reaction score
77
Location
um... Wasilla...
Thank's for taking the time to reply, Hippie.

3. I'm not sure how other atrocities are a rebuttal to the very real fact that the aforementioned issues need to be addressed, and hopefully corrected.
I was attempting to point out that the previous ban made no statistical difference in the number or type of atrocities committed by individuals bent on perpetrating violence. It only served to keep certain tools out of the hands of otherwise law-abiding citizens. And, an honest look at similar crimes that did not involve firearms indicates that with or without easy access to firearms, violent individuals will still find a way to commit violent acts. (REF: the list I posted in post #18.) Stricter measures controlling the purchase and possession of firearms will do nothing to satiate the violence in a man's heart.

And speaking of post #18, you still haven't answered either of these questions: (please read this post for context)

Why should there automatically be a call to restrict firearms simply because they were Adam Lanza's weapon of choice?

Why should the children of Newtown be used as a catalyst to oppress the remainder of America?


Finally, there's this...
5. As I stated, the blood is on the hands of the killer. And is also shared by those who put selfishness above logic.

Acknowledging the fact that mass killings overwhelmingly take place in gun-free zones, wouldn't logic dictate that the blood should be not be shared by those who wish to have ready access to firearms, but rather by those that have chosen to selectively disarm law-abiding citizens in certain geographic areas, while neglecting their responsibility to then ensure the safety of the people in those areas?

For example, courthouses are gun-free zones protected by armed law enforcement officers. But schools are gun-free zones typically "protected" by nothing more than a metal detector, or what amounts to an unarmed hall monitor. Where is the logic in that?
 

wtrdog1

New member
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
156
Reaction score
101
Sounds like many here don't venture out of the country for "safety" reasons. Chances are you are not able to carry your handguns with you when traveling abroad. What is one to do if vacationing in a foreign country for a couple weeks where LE is unpredictable at best?
 

AlaskaHippie

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
3,957
Reaction score
724
Location
K.Bay
Hippie, Your attempts at insult aside, I will attempt to remain above the fray.​


That ship has sailed cod. You've accused me of using a different account (akpirate), posted that I have left the discussion, etc. etc.

YOU began with the insults, and as such, I will reply in kind.




My intention from my posts, as I said earlier was to examine the logic and thought process that is used when an OP (in this case Hippie) starts a discussion and half explains his position.

Negative, your "intention" has been to obfuscate, spin, and otherwise attempt to cast me in the light of your choosing. Oh, and to be insulting as well.

As soon as someone begins to dig further and/or asks more questions of the poster's position, they often refuse to follow their own logic to its conclusion. It is simply my position that the reason for such avoidance is because the poster realizes his dilema. It is often just emotional nonlogical bluster.



"Emotional non logical bluster"? You mean like accusing pirate of being me, or Bushrat, simply to assuage your own angst?

That kind of....Bluster?

I'll repost below Hippie and you may, or may not wish to read and/or answer the posted questions which you have claimed you did not "skirt". As I said earlier, I'm not trying to 'change' your mind. But I am trying to make a pt.

You're not trying to make a point, you're trying to bolster your own online image of yourself. And to continue to be insulting.

Nice try tho'.



If you want to promote the logic of the attempted laws that are to be introduced, I think you should be prepared to defend those promotions-with answers and logic.

Which I have. Guess what junior, I'm not here at your beck and call to respond to your delusional, self important conspiracies.

I attempted to answer, and be cordial to you. Once you decided to make this personal and begin spouting lies, you marginalized your stance.

Have a GREAT day.

 

AlaskaHippie

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
3,957
Reaction score
724
Location
K.Bay
Thank's for taking the time to reply, Hippie.


I was attempting to point out that the previous ban made no statistical difference in the number or type of atrocities committed by individuals bent on perpetrating violence. It only served to keep certain tools out of the hands of otherwise law-abiding citizens. And, an honest look at similar crimes that did not involve firearms indicates that with or without easy access to firearms, violent individuals will still find a way to commit violent acts. (REF: the list I posted in post #18.) Stricter measures controlling the purchase and possession of firearms will do nothing to satiate the violence in a man's heart.

And speaking of post #18, you still haven't answered either of these questions: (please read this post for context)

Why should there automatically be a call to restrict firearms simply because they were Adam Lanza's weapon of choice?


There shouldn't be. Where have I called for the restriction of ANY weapons?

I haven't.

Why should the children of Newtown be used as a catalyst to oppress the remainder of America?



Weren't you lamenting "emotional spin" earlier? And now you opt for the same?

How is a UBC or registration "Oppressing"?

And even IF it is, how is it infringing on the 2nd Amendment?
Finally, there's this...

Acknowledging the fact that mass killings overwhelmingly take place in gun-free zones, wouldn't logic dictate that the blood should be not be shared by those who wish to have ready access to firearms, but rather by those that have chosen to selectively disarm law-abiding citizens in certain geographic areas, while neglecting their responsibility to then ensure the safety of the people in those areas?

No, it would not. That's an interesting theory, but I don't believe it holds water.

While I'm by no means a fan of G.F.Z's, I don't believe that they existed until the fairly recent past, and we've seen atrocities carried out in areas that where not G.F.Z.'s that where every bit as heinous.

For example, courthouses are gun-free zones protected by armed law enforcement officers. But schools are gun-free zones typically "protected" by nothing more than a metal detector, or what amounts to an unarmed hall monitor. Where is the logic in that?

There isn't any, and in the days immediately following Sandy Hook, I advocated, and still do, properly trained, and armed staff in our schools.

No offense here Rod, but you're confusing my point with those wishing to ban guns and disarm Law Abiding folks, and that simply is not my stance at all.
 

AlaskaHippie

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
3,957
Reaction score
724
Location
K.Bay
"When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away." what part of this don't you understand?

Seriously? The best you and MT have is Bumper Sticker rebuttals?


What's next, the worn out photo of Charleton Heston decrying "From my cold dead hands"?
 

Rock_skipper

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
2,499
Reaction score
275
Location
Deltajct
Hippie the UBC is really oppressing to us all. Some are willing to bend to what makes them think that thier familys will be safe, and then there are others that want to be sure that they are protected by thier own means without the GOV. stepping in.

For those that have no criminal record ( and I would think that these people are the ones voting for the UBC's ) anyday something could happen to you, weather it was your fault or not, you would be limited to what you could buy.

I would think that most would think about thier children and the mistakes that they are yet to make before you condem them to a life of rules that they will break to have the same freedoms that we enjoyed.
 

MontanaRifleman

New member
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
3,071
Reaction score
147
Seriously? The best you and MT have is Bumper Sticker rebuttals?


What's next, the worn out photo of Charleton Heston decrying "From my cold dead hands"?

I actually expected you to use the "bumper sticker" rebuttal and you didn't let me down. You also didn't surprise me with part 2 of your rebuttal. In short, no cogent response, although you are intelligent enough to make one if one exists. Maybe that's because there isn't a good answer to....when seconds count, LE is only minutes away. Slogans sometimes actually have some profound truth like the one used.

How about this time actually answering the point... what is a law abiding citizen to do when an armed criminal breaks into their home and they don't have ready access to self defense and they are waiting who knows how long for the police to show up?

Thanks in advance
 

yukon254

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
1,443
Reaction score
67
Location
Yukon Canada
How is a UBC or registration "Oppressing"?

The definition of Oppressing..........Keep (someone) in subservience and hardship, esp. by the unjust exercise of authority.

So hippie you feel UBCs and registration would NOT be oppressing???? How did you come to that conclusion???? CNN?? I along with many other Canadians would beg to differ. We lived with registration....still live with what amounts to UBCs......guess what, they are oppressive.....oh and by the way they dont work!! Do your homework before coming to conclusions.....Canada is a prime example of what your Govt is proposing right now.....The cost of registration was astronomical ( and unsustainable) and it did nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns. We still have to get a UBC to get our FAC ( lic. to purchase) Criminals dont apply for FACs...... Opinions based on emotions often lead to the wrong conclusion.
 

TOMCOD

Active member
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
396
Reaction score
39
Location
Eagle River
A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie. ---Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
 

Tearbear

New member
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
1,986
Reaction score
118
Location
Alaska
What is one to do if vacationing in a foreign country for a couple weeks where LE is unpredictable at best?

No need to travel to a foreign country for that, I am in an area where I can not count on Troopers to respond in time to 'save' or protect me...I have to be able to protect & save myself.
 

Rod in Wasilla

Active member
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
896
Reaction score
77
Location
um... Wasilla...
Again, thanks for taking the time to reply, Hippie.

... Where have I called for the restriction of ANY weapons?

... How is a UBC or registration "Oppressing"?

... how is it infringing on the 2nd Amendment?

... No offense here Rod, but you're confusing my point with those wishing to ban guns and disarm Law Abiding folks, and that simply is not my stance at all.

Well, I am certainly confused...

Maybe I have misinterpreted your position. But, isn't this exactly what you wrote at the beginning of this thread?
My "point" is... a call for stricter measures over the purchase and possesion of firearms.

Yet, even if I did misunderstand what you wrote, I have to ask... what need is there for universal firearm registration (which must necessarily be implemented for UBC's to be enforceable) other than to restrict firearm ownership?

... THIS thread ... was posted to highlight the reality that an AR was used

And I know you keep posting that you aren't calling for the ban of any firearms, but why exactly would you feel the need to point out that an AR was used at Sandy Hook, other than to promote its restriction?

So, yeah. I am a little confused about where you stand.

But the one thing that you are consistent about is the need for responsible gun owners to keep guns away from individuals that shouldn't have them. And, while that may feel good to say, I don't think it would be as simple or as effective as you seem to think.

Barring a court hearing, how would a person know if their child, or roommate, or spouse is actually unfit? Would everybody need to get annual mental health screenings? Would passing such a screening actually keep a kid from snapping because he got rejected when asking a girl to the prom, or because he got picked on by a bully? I would argue that it would not. So, even if you were able to enact UBC's, you wouldn't stop killing sprees. And don't try to insert the silly "if we only save one child it's worth it" argument here. If people were concerned with saving children, they would be advocating for the ban of swimming pools and baseball bats.

We should not restrict the rights of the sane and law-abiding because of the heinous actions of the violent and insane. Freedom is simply too precious to restrict its only means of defense. If you want to have a real conversation about preventing gun violence, let's talk about re-opening mental institutions and expanding capital punishment.
 

cdubbin

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
2,330
Reaction score
315
Location
KP, the dingleberry of Alaska
What's next, the worn out photo of Charleton Heston decrying "From my cold dead hands"?

A less well-known Heston quote (concerning the Gun Control Act of 1968): “This bill is no mystery. Let’s be clear about it. Its purpose is simple and direct. It is not to deprive the sportsman of his hunting gun, the marksman of his target rifle, nor would it deny to any responsible citizen his constitutional right to own a firearm. It is to prevent the murder of Americans.” :)
 

yukon254

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
1,443
Reaction score
67
Location
Yukon Canada
We should not restrict the rights of the sane and law-abiding because of the heinous actions of the violent and insane. Freedom is simply too precious to restrict its only means of defense. If you want to have a real conversation about preventing gun violence, let's talk about re-opening mental institutions and expanding capital punishment.

amen!
 

Rock_skipper

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
2,499
Reaction score
275
Location
Deltajct
Maybe someone can help me out of posting this link.

A couple of hours ago a prop. was intro'ed in Conn. on gun laws.

Goggle Conn. gun laws.

One of these days I'll learn how to do this, lol.
 
Top