2nd amendment... A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]
...
That is what is open to interpretation.
When it was drafted, it was because the King's Army was the one who were 'The Protectors' of the colonies, not the colonists. That's also the reason for the 3rd Amendment is ranked so high, to keep the Army from taking over your land and water for their needs. in fact, all of the Amendments were drafted because that was the way England ran the colonies and the founders wanted to make sure it didn't occur after the formation of our country.
Now, 'A Well-regulated Militia' is necessary and that military should be made up of citizens, not soldiers of a foriegn land. Basically, the formation of a citizen army.
...
It can also be interpreted as the citizens being a regulated militia... meaning I should be able to buy a fully operational tank or howitzer, if I want to. I can't because basic reasoning says, we can't have privately owned and operated tanks rolling down our streets.
Either way... it is a tough situation, regarding the times and technologies. I do not believe our founders ever envisioned flame throwers or M-16s.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I'm plenty aware that there are some laws, thanks. Unfortunately for Colorado, they have very few laws. I know floridas laws are a bit better, but not much. I think we dont need a permit or license. But there is a background check and a very small waiting period. Unfortuately, I can also purchase an AR-15 or a 50 caliber sniper able to take down helicopters. And I can get a concealed carry permit without leaving my house:
And yes my statement is directed at those wanting to take away guns and make laws stricter for the law abiding...
Well, then please refrain from directing comments at me being irrational when I've never (and about 98% of other in here have never said) to take away all guns. :?
And by the way, I have a lot of friends and relatives that have guns that never take any classes, training or educational courses whatsoever. My friend who almost shot me that is a cop, he has taken a lot of training as you might imagine.
. [
And in many of the shootings the guns were purchased legally. The thing is, people are law-abiding...until they're not. Until there are stricter restrictions we are taking a huge risk in having seemingly very open access to weapons and ammunition in some states, including for people who are teetering on the edge.
Exactly. When the likes of Holmes can stockpile for weeks, buying over the internet with no checks,one needs to question the efficacity of current laws. Stricter regulations, proper checks may be able to avoid such people getting their hands on arsenals. No skin off the nose of the 'responsible, law abiding citizen', on the contrary.
And in many of the shootings the guns were purchased legally. The thing is, people are law-abiding...until they're not. Until there are stricter restrictions we are taking a huge risk in having seemingly very open access to weapons and ammunition in some states, including for people who are teetering on the edge.
The state I currently live in has lax gun laws (the NRA loves us). For the most part, it's a bunch of outdoorsmen that act responsibly.
But, it's near Illinois, so lots of guns sold here end up on the streets of Chicago.
There needs to be better regulations, but there won't be. Obama has already hidden behind Congress on the gun debate.
The psychiatrist who treated suspected movie-theater shooter James Holmes made contact with a University of Colorado police officer to express concerns about her patient's behavior several weeks before Holmes' alleged rampage, sources told ABC News.
The sources did not know what the officer approached by Dr. Lynne Fenton did with the information she passed along. They said, however, that the officer was recently interviewed, with an attorney present, by the Aurora Police Department as a part of the ongoing investigation of the shooting.
Fenton would have had to have serious concerns to break confidentiality with her patient to reach out to the police officer or others, the sources said. Under Colorado law, a psychiatrist can legally breach a pledge of confidentiality with a patient if he or she becomes aware of a serious and imminent threat that their patient might cause harm to others. Psychiatrists can also breach confidentiality if a court has ordered them to do so.
"For any physician to break doctor-patient confidentiality there would have to be an extremely good reason," said Dr. Carol Bernstein, a psychiatrist at NYU Langone Medical Center and past president of the American Psychiatric Association.
Bernstein has no specific knowledge of the Holmes case and spoke in general terms.
"Confidentiality is a key part of the doctor-patient relationship," she said. "It is central to everything we do."
ABC news and affiliate KMGH-TV in Denver first reported Wednesday that Fenton had contacted other members of the university's threat-assessment team about her concerns. The university-wide, threat-assessment team reportedly never met to discuss Holmes after he announced his intent to withdraw from the University nearly six weeks before the July 20 shooting that left 12 dead and 58 injured.
University of Colorado spokeswoman Jacque Montgomery declined to comment on what, if anything, the university police officer might have done with information provided by Fenton, citing a court-issued gag order preventing her from confirming or denying any information related to Fenton or the investigation.
In a written statement to ABC News, however, the university said campus police officers are "frequently involved" in meetings of the university's Behavioral Evaluation and Threat Assessment (BETA) team.
The statement went on to say that police involvement with threat assessment "could include security matters, badge access, background checks, wellness checks, criminal investigations and referrals and outreach to other law enforcement agencies."
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
The psychiatrist who treated suspected movie-theater shooter James Holmes made contact with a University of Colorado police officer to express concerns about her patient's behavior several weeks before Holmes' alleged rampage, sources told ABC News."
And during this time, a person known to be 'a risk' by the police was still able to purchase firearms as no checks were made......
The psychiatrist who treated suspected movie-theater shooter James Holmes made contact with a University of Colorado police officer to express concerns about her patient's behavior several weeks before Holmes' alleged rampage, sources told ABC News.
The sources did not know what the officer approached by Dr. Lynne Fenton did with the information she passed along. They said, however, that the officer was recently interviewed, with an attorney present, by the Aurora Police Department as a part of the ongoing investigation of the shooting.
Fenton would have had to have serious concerns to break confidentiality with her patient to reach out to the police officer or others, the sources said. Under Colorado law, a psychiatrist can legally breach a pledge of confidentiality with a patient if he or she becomes aware of a serious and imminent threat that their patient might cause harm to others. Psychiatrists can also breach confidentiality if a court has ordered them to do so.
"For any physician to break doctor-patient confidentiality there would have to be an extremely good reason," said Dr. Carol Bernstein, a psychiatrist at NYU Langone Medical Center and past president of the American Psychiatric Association.
Bernstein has no specific knowledge of the Holmes case and spoke in general terms.
"Confidentiality is a key part of the doctor-patient relationship," she said. "It is central to everything we do."
ABC news and affiliate KMGH-TV in Denver first reported Wednesday that Fenton had contacted other members of the university's threat-assessment team about her concerns. The university-wide, threat-assessment team reportedly never met to discuss Holmes after he announced his intent to withdraw from the University nearly six weeks before the July 20 shooting that left 12 dead and 58 injured.
University of Colorado spokeswoman Jacque Montgomery declined to comment on what, if anything, the university police officer might have done with information provided by Fenton, citing a court-issued gag order preventing her from confirming or denying any information related to Fenton or the investigation.
In a written statement to ABC News, however, the university said campus police officers are "frequently involved" in meetings of the university's Behavioral Evaluation and Threat Assessment (BETA) team.
The statement went on to say that police involvement with threat assessment "could include security matters, badge access, background checks, wellness checks, criminal investigations and referrals and outreach to other law enforcement agencies."
I posted a bit about this on the AET as well. I'm very interested in hearing more about what Fenton knew specifically and what she shared with police. My assumption is that both Fenton (or a rep from Counseling Services) and campus police both sit on the threat assessment team. The threat assessment teams/BIT teams grew out of VA Tech and allow for some general sharing among members, but mental health professionals are still bounds by confidentiality laws and can only share specifics if a risk rises to the level outlined in the Tarasoff case. If Fenton knew of a very clear and specific risk she absolutely could and should have reported that to the police and they should have responded accordingly and worked with the local off-campus police as well. However, if she just had a general concern about his mental stability, she would only have been able to mention that he had been evaluated by the center and that there was a general concern for his behavior. It's really unclear what Fenton knew and what she relayed at his point. Since Holmes wasn't hospitalized, my guess is that he was teetering on the edge but wasn't quite at the point of being considered a danger to himself or others when she evaluated him, nor that she had any information about a specific threat. If she had any of those concerns, she most likely would have had him immediately sent to the local crisis center for evaluation. I haven't heard anything to indicate this was done yet. It's possible that the school dropped the ball when Holmes decided to withdraw from school and they may have figured he was no longer a concern for the university. They should have at least attempted to refer him to services in the community at that point, but they wouldn't have been able to mandate that.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
"Fenton would have had to have serious concerns to break confidentiality with her patient to reach out to the police officer or others, the sources said. Under Colorado law, a psychiatrist can legally breach a pledge of confidentiality with a patient if he or she becomes aware of a serious and imminent threat that their patient might cause harm to others. Psychiatrists can also breach confidentiality if a court has ordered them to do so."
It's these cases CBG that one wonders if a change in the law could help by preventing these people from purchasing new firearms and/or immediately revoking a license (if it exists) and, at least until fully evaluated, confiscating such weapons - for their protection and protection of others. I'm sure a lot of people here would scream blue murder as it would be removing a 'right' but such actions could prevent lethal situations after. Allowing possible arsenals of weapons in the hands of known unstable people is just.. well... crazy!
just to clear the air here... i could take out helicopter with probably just about any gun that could go through a bit of metal or fiberglass. i assume helicopter motor and coolant system covered with a bit of metal or fiberglass. a 22, a shotgun slug, and many other common guns easily penetrate metal & fiberglass.
the pilot & passenger(s)... yep
so you see one does not need large elephant murdering rifle to take down helicopter. NO. that is incorrect.
...
Hero Complex.
Do any of us feel safer that these 'heroes' are out to 'protect' us... or does it raise our level of anxiety knowing there is some random fucking stranger with knives and guns on him? How do we know if he is there to protect us... or kill us?
If you are that fucking paranoid in public... to go everywhere with guns and shit. Please, stay home. Use NetFlicks.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Just weird that people think they need such armement, that a 'gun room' is just as normal as the spare bedroom for your friends. :?
With much stricter gun laws and regulations across the board, socio-economic factors need to be looked at as well. Along with the 'rules' the root of the problem needs to be tackled as well. As was said by several people, are we so disillusioned, without hope for the future that gun accumulation is a 'need', whether because it's cool, fun, exciting, paranoia, for 'protection', etc.?
"Fenton would have had to have serious concerns to break confidentiality with her patient to reach out to the police officer or others, the sources said. Under Colorado law, a psychiatrist can legally breach a pledge of confidentiality with a patient if he or she becomes aware of a serious and imminent threat that their patient might cause harm to others. Psychiatrists can also breach confidentiality if a court has ordered them to do so."
It's these cases CBG that one wonders if a change in the law could help by preventing these people from purchasing new firearms and/or immediately revoking a license (if it exists) and, at least until fully evaluated, confiscating such weapons - for their protection and protection of others. I'm sure a lot of people here would scream blue murder as it would be removing a 'right' but such actions could prevent lethal situations after. Allowing possible arsenals of weapons in the hands of known unstable people is just.. well... crazy!
The quote isn't completely accurate. While technically the statement about confidentiality is true, if Fenton was part of the threat assessment team she could have shared some general information with other members of the team. The fact that she had been in contact with the team doesn't necessarily mean she had enough information about an imminent threat. It would determine what she could share though. What's stated in theory and what happens in practice often differs. I don't know the specifics of the case though.
I absolutely agree. The VA Tech shooter was able to obtain a weapon even though he had a mental health history because he was mandated to outpatient treatment, not involuntary inpatient treatment. It just seems crazy to me that there are all of these people that are literally teetering on the edge, and yet they can still stockpile weapons. As I've mentioned before, I've met with numerous people who have no criminal history and no serious mental health diagnosis, who could easily and legally obtain a weapon. Yet if I were to be charged with evaluating them and giving my stamp of approval, that stamp would say "HELL NO!!!" I've had to provide clearance for people before they can get plastic surgery or gastric bypass, but not an AR-15? Seems insane.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
just to clear the air here... i could take out helicopter with probably just about any gun that could go through a bit of metal or fiberglass.
Would you have to be a very good shot then? Or just close enough and lucky? Of course, being a responsible gun owner you would be fully trained in this art!
...
Hero Complex.
Do any of us feel safer that these 'heroes' are out to 'protect' us... or does it raise our level of anxiety knowing there is some random fucking stranger with knives and guns on him? How do we know if he is there to protect us... or kill us?
If you are that fucking paranoid in public... to go everywhere with guns and shit. Please, stay home. Use NetFlicks.
Well as long as he doesn't come toting a bag of nickels, we're good :P Seriously, if this becomes the norm, I'm going to find a job that lets me work from home and never leave the house again. I don't want this asshat protecting me.
Just weird that people think they need such armement, that a 'gun room' is just as normal as the spare bedroom for your friends. :?
With much stricter gun laws and regulations across the board, socio-economic factors need to be looked at as well. Along with the 'rules' the root of the problem needs to be tackled as well. As was said by several people, are we so disillusioned, without hope for the future that gun accumulation is a 'need', whether because it's cool, fun, exciting, paranoia, for 'protection', etc.?
It really is insanity. My friend's husband has a gun room, and at least 30 guns at last count. She told me one morning she forgot the alarm was on and accidentally set it off one morning while she was getting ready in the bathroom. She hears her husband getting his gun from the nightstand (responsible gun ownership :roll: ) and has to scream "It's just me!) Needless to say I've only been to their house once in 7 years.
I agree redrock. Are people really this terrified that they can't go about their day without being armed to the hilt?
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
...
Hero Complex.
Do any of us feel safer that these 'heroes' are out to 'protect' us... or does it raise our level of anxiety knowing there is some random fucking stranger with knives and guns on him? How do we know if he is there to protect us... or kill us?
If you are that fucking paranoid in public... to go everywhere with guns and shit. Please, stay home. Use NetFlicks.
Wouldn't have thought that Twitter could have said no! Would have also thought the authorities could get that info in a matter of minutes if they wanted to.
Just weird that people think they need such armement, that a 'gun room' is just as normal as the spare bedroom for your friends. :?
With much stricter gun laws and regulations across the board, socio-economic factors need to be looked at as well. Along with the 'rules' the root of the problem needs to be tackled as well. As was said by several people, are we so disillusioned, without hope for the future that gun accumulation is a 'need', whether because it's cool, fun, exciting, paranoia, for 'protection', etc.?
...
I don't have a problem with gun collectors... like old hunting rifles and even old military rifles like the M-1 or German Mauser rifle (but, no machine guns, bazookas, flame throwers, mortars). I have always like the German P08 luger and Walther P38. I can see them as collectors items.
I still think they all need to be registered, though. They can be as lethal and any modern gun.
Now, if you are collecting a bunch of current military type semi-automatic rifles... like if you have 7 AR-15s. You have to go through some sort of screening or training or something. Because, really... how many deer are you going to be shooting with those things?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I'm sure there are lots collectors that have a passion for antique guns and that have their 'gun room' for display, with this gun room secure (as you say, most could still be in perfect working order) but what we have seen recently with those stockpiling arsenals is that they are not 'collectors' in that sense!
I'm sure there are lots collectors that have a passion for antique guns and that have their 'gun room' for display, with this gun room secure (as you say, most could still be in perfect working order) but what we have seen recently with those stockpiling arsenals is that they are not 'collectors' in that sense!
...
Ever seen 'Doomsday Preppers' on the cable T.V?
Funny, pathetic and frieghtening at the same time.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I watched a bit from a couple of episodes. You can't tell me these people are 'all there'. I don't care what adults do to themselves, but present that kind of paranoia to their kids and make them live it? How can these have a normal life as adults??? It is very scary because you just don't know what these kind of people can be up to. What they might perceive as a threat and therefore perhaps take drastic action with the weapons they are stockpiling.
Can I say 'only in America' or will I get blasted for that?
It really is insanity. My friend's husband has a gun room, and at least 30 guns at last count.
What does he do with all these guns? Use them all? Hunts? Target shoots?
Or are his guns what shoes are to my daughter? 'But they're sooooooo nice! What will you wear them with? I don't know but they're sooooooooooooooooooo pretty! They're Iron Fist!' 30 pairs of shoes are obviously less lethal than 30 guns (though mind those stilettos!)
I watched a bit from a couple of episodes. You can't tell me these people are 'all there'. I don't care what adults do to themselves, but present that kind of paranoia to their kids and make them live it? How can these have a normal life as adults??? It is very scary because you just don't know what these kind of people can be up to. What they might perceive as a threat and therefore perhaps take drastic action with the weapons they are stockpiling.
Can I say 'only in America' or will I get blasted for that?
...
The fire power some of those groups of people yielded could take out a lot of smaller police and sheriff forces. A lot of them had way more powerful weapons.
...
My personal favorite: The gal that was waiting for the day when the oil supplies were depleted. Her plan was to shoot her pet cat in the head, grab her 60 pound pack and weapons and walk 20 miles to a bug-out vehicle... and DRIVE to Mexico. The gas would be scarce or gone, and she was planning to drive to Mexico.
Yeah, her destination, that rock of stability... Mexico.
She needs to rent 'Mad Max' and see what people would do for a Ford F-150 with extra tanks of gasoline.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
It really is insanity. My friend's husband has a gun room, and at least 30 guns at last count.
What does he do with all these guns? Use them all? Hunts? Target shoots?
Or are his guns what shoes are to my daughter? 'But they're sooooooo nice! What will you wear them with? I don't know but they're sooooooooooooooooooo pretty! They're Iron Fist!' 30 pairs of shoes are obviously less lethal than 30 guns (though mind those stilettos!)
He doesn't hunt, so I'm not sure what he really does with them. I know he goes targeting shooting, but I can't imagine he'd need 30 different guns for that. She told me he has a "summer gun" (easier to conceal) and a "winter gun" (bulkier) so I guess he has a permit to carry. She said he will spend hours at night locked in his office looking at different guns online and she wishes he was into something normal, like porn He's a sketchy kind of guy so I might be a bit biased about him anyway. It concerns me that he keeps a loaded weapon in their nightstand too.
I completely understand the shoe thing though, but I mean having 30 pairs of shoes just makes perfect rational sense :oops:
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
I watched a bit from a couple of episodes. You can't tell me these people are 'all there'. I don't care what adults do to themselves, but present that kind of paranoia to their kids and make them live it? How can these have a normal life as adults??? It is very scary because you just don't know what these kind of people can be up to. What they might perceive as a threat and therefore perhaps take drastic action with the weapons they are stockpiling.
Can I say 'only in America' or will I get blasted for that?
...
The fire power some of those groups of people yielded could take out a lot of smaller police and sheriff forces. A lot of them had way more powerful weapons.
...
My personal favorite: The gal that was waiting for the day when the oil supplies were depleted. Her plan was to shoot her pet cat in the head, grab her 60 pound pack and weapons and walk 20 miles to a bug-out vehicle... and DRIVE to Mexico. The gas would be scarce or gone, and she was planning to drive to Mexico.
Yeah, her destination, that rock of stability... Mexico.
She needs to rent 'Mad Max' and see what people would do for a Ford F-150 with extra tanks of gasoline.
Ok...all I saw was "shoot her pet cat in the head" :shock: She's fucked :evil:
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
There are so many nutters around and all of these can have any type of weapon, and as many as they want. I think I would prefer to 'live' Mad Max than be caught amongst those!
It concerns me that he keeps a loaded weapon in their nightstand too.
Yep. An alarmed gun room... well... maybe. But a loaded weapon in the nightstand? :nono: Let's just hope that one day he doesn't 'snap' and decide to use those weapons in a 'dramatic' way.
Comments
That is what is open to interpretation.
When it was drafted, it was because the King's Army was the one who were 'The Protectors' of the colonies, not the colonists. That's also the reason for the 3rd Amendment is ranked so high, to keep the Army from taking over your land and water for their needs. in fact, all of the Amendments were drafted because that was the way England ran the colonies and the founders wanted to make sure it didn't occur after the formation of our country.
Now, 'A Well-regulated Militia' is necessary and that military should be made up of citizens, not soldiers of a foriegn land. Basically, the formation of a citizen army.
...
It can also be interpreted as the citizens being a regulated militia... meaning I should be able to buy a fully operational tank or howitzer, if I want to. I can't because basic reasoning says, we can't have privately owned and operated tanks rolling down our streets.
Either way... it is a tough situation, regarding the times and technologies. I do not believe our founders ever envisioned flame throwers or M-16s.
Hail, Hail!!!
I'm plenty aware that there are some laws, thanks. Unfortunately for Colorado, they have very few laws. I know floridas laws are a bit better, but not much. I think we dont need a permit or license. But there is a background check and a very small waiting period. Unfortuately, I can also purchase an AR-15 or a 50 caliber sniper able to take down helicopters. And I can get a concealed carry permit without leaving my house:
http://www.politifact.com/florida/state ... ing-your-/
Nope.
Well, then please refrain from directing comments at me being irrational when I've never (and about 98% of other in here have never said) to take away all guns. :?
And by the way, I have a lot of friends and relatives that have guns that never take any classes, training or educational courses whatsoever. My friend who almost shot me that is a cop, he has taken a lot of training as you might imagine.
But, it's near Illinois, so lots of guns sold here end up on the streets of Chicago.
There needs to be better regulations, but there won't be. Obama has already hidden behind Congress on the gun debate.
The psychiatrist who treated suspected movie-theater shooter James Holmes made contact with a University of Colorado police officer to express concerns about her patient's behavior several weeks before Holmes' alleged rampage, sources told ABC News.
The sources did not know what the officer approached by Dr. Lynne Fenton did with the information she passed along. They said, however, that the officer was recently interviewed, with an attorney present, by the Aurora Police Department as a part of the ongoing investigation of the shooting.
Fenton would have had to have serious concerns to break confidentiality with her patient to reach out to the police officer or others, the sources said. Under Colorado law, a psychiatrist can legally breach a pledge of confidentiality with a patient if he or she becomes aware of a serious and imminent threat that their patient might cause harm to others. Psychiatrists can also breach confidentiality if a court has ordered them to do so.
"For any physician to break doctor-patient confidentiality there would have to be an extremely good reason," said Dr. Carol Bernstein, a psychiatrist at NYU Langone Medical Center and past president of the American Psychiatric Association.
Bernstein has no specific knowledge of the Holmes case and spoke in general terms.
"Confidentiality is a key part of the doctor-patient relationship," she said. "It is central to everything we do."
ABC news and affiliate KMGH-TV in Denver first reported Wednesday that Fenton had contacted other members of the university's threat-assessment team about her concerns. The university-wide, threat-assessment team reportedly never met to discuss Holmes after he announced his intent to withdraw from the University nearly six weeks before the July 20 shooting that left 12 dead and 58 injured.
University of Colorado spokeswoman Jacque Montgomery declined to comment on what, if anything, the university police officer might have done with information provided by Fenton, citing a court-issued gag order preventing her from confirming or denying any information related to Fenton or the investigation.
In a written statement to ABC News, however, the university said campus police officers are "frequently involved" in meetings of the university's Behavioral Evaluation and Threat Assessment (BETA) team.
The statement went on to say that police involvement with threat assessment "could include security matters, badge access, background checks, wellness checks, criminal investigations and referrals and outreach to other law enforcement agencies."
And during this time, a person known to be 'a risk' by the police was still able to purchase firearms as no checks were made......
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
It's these cases CBG that one wonders if a change in the law could help by preventing these people from purchasing new firearms and/or immediately revoking a license (if it exists) and, at least until fully evaluated, confiscating such weapons - for their protection and protection of others. I'm sure a lot of people here would scream blue murder as it would be removing a 'right' but such actions could prevent lethal situations after. Allowing possible arsenals of weapons in the hands of known unstable people is just.. well... crazy!
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08 ... e-say?lite
the pilot & passenger(s)... yep
so you see one does not need large elephant murdering rifle to take down helicopter. NO. that is incorrect.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Hero Complex.
Do any of us feel safer that these 'heroes' are out to 'protect' us... or does it raise our level of anxiety knowing there is some random fucking stranger with knives and guns on him? How do we know if he is there to protect us... or kill us?
If you are that fucking paranoid in public... to go everywhere with guns and shit. Please, stay home. Use NetFlicks.
Hail, Hail!!!
With much stricter gun laws and regulations across the board, socio-economic factors need to be looked at as well. Along with the 'rules' the root of the problem needs to be tackled as well. As was said by several people, are we so disillusioned, without hope for the future that gun accumulation is a 'need', whether because it's cool, fun, exciting, paranoia, for 'protection', etc.?
I absolutely agree. The VA Tech shooter was able to obtain a weapon even though he had a mental health history because he was mandated to outpatient treatment, not involuntary inpatient treatment. It just seems crazy to me that there are all of these people that are literally teetering on the edge, and yet they can still stockpile weapons. As I've mentioned before, I've met with numerous people who have no criminal history and no serious mental health diagnosis, who could easily and legally obtain a weapon. Yet if I were to be charged with evaluating them and giving my stamp of approval, that stamp would say "HELL NO!!!" I've had to provide clearance for people before they can get plastic surgery or gastric bypass, but not an AR-15? Seems insane.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Would you have to be a very good shot then? Or just close enough and lucky? Of course, being a responsible gun owner you would be fully trained in this art!
Crazy about the go ahead for the surgery but not bothering about guns....
It really is insanity. My friend's husband has a gun room, and at least 30 guns at last count. She told me one morning she forgot the alarm was on and accidentally set it off one morning while she was getting ready in the bathroom. She hears her husband getting his gun from the nightstand (responsible gun ownership :roll: ) and has to scream "It's just me!) Needless to say I've only been to their house once in 7 years.
I agree redrock. Are people really this terrified that they can't go about their day without being armed to the hilt?
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=748951
Wouldn't have thought that Twitter could have said no! Would have also thought the authorities could get that info in a matter of minutes if they wanted to.
I don't have a problem with gun collectors... like old hunting rifles and even old military rifles like the M-1 or German Mauser rifle (but, no machine guns, bazookas, flame throwers, mortars). I have always like the German P08 luger and Walther P38. I can see them as collectors items.
I still think they all need to be registered, though. They can be as lethal and any modern gun.
Now, if you are collecting a bunch of current military type semi-automatic rifles... like if you have 7 AR-15s. You have to go through some sort of screening or training or something. Because, really... how many deer are you going to be shooting with those things?
Hail, Hail!!!
Not sure what is more disturbing... the story itself or the posted comments.
Hail, Hail!!!
Ever seen 'Doomsday Preppers' on the cable T.V?
Funny, pathetic and frieghtening at the same time.
Hail, Hail!!!
Can I say 'only in America' or will I get blasted for that?
What does he do with all these guns? Use them all? Hunts? Target shoots?
Or are his guns what shoes are to my daughter? 'But they're sooooooo nice! What will you wear them with? I don't know but they're sooooooooooooooooooo pretty! They're Iron Fist!'
30 pairs of shoes are obviously less lethal than 30 guns (though mind those stilettos!)
The fire power some of those groups of people yielded could take out a lot of smaller police and sheriff forces. A lot of them had way more powerful weapons.
...
My personal favorite: The gal that was waiting for the day when the oil supplies were depleted. Her plan was to shoot her pet cat in the head, grab her 60 pound pack and weapons and walk 20 miles to a bug-out vehicle... and DRIVE to Mexico. The gas would be scarce or gone, and she was planning to drive to Mexico.
Yeah, her destination, that rock of stability... Mexico.
She needs to rent 'Mad Max' and see what people would do for a Ford F-150 with extra tanks of gasoline.
Hail, Hail!!!
I completely understand the shoe thing though, but I mean having 30 pairs of shoes just makes perfect rational sense
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
There are so many nutters around and all of these can have any type of weapon, and as many as they want. I think I would prefer to 'live' Mad Max than be caught amongst those!
Yep. An alarmed gun room... well... maybe. But a loaded weapon in the nightstand? :nono: Let's just hope that one day he doesn't 'snap' and decide to use those weapons in a 'dramatic' way.
I think so too.