Jump to content

Oh those pesky assult rifles......

Recommended Posts

"If yeh wouldn't do those things, and yeh support community laws which would restrict others from doin' things you would not do, then what's wrong with havin' that conversation?

There's nothing wrong with having a rational conversation as long as we're not denigrating each other (nutters, cowboys, etc) and we're using facts.


"Is there somethin' wrong within da firearms community from choosing not to sell to a woman talkin' about imminent economic collapse and lookin' stressed? Forget the law for a moment. What's da right thing to do?"

Pure speculation, you don't know if she looked stressed or even spoke to the gun shop owner about her beliefs. Apparently only her family knew of her beliefs.


"Is there somethin' wrong with notion that your firearms and ammunition should be secured at home if yeh have kids or not fully functional adults in da house?"

Nope, and I never said there was. My stuff is all locked in a 2,000 pound safe bolted to the floor. It is unlawful in this state to have unsecured weapons where someone under 16 can have access to them.


What's wrong with another person on da range sayin' "Linda, are you securin' those guns at home? You've been havin' trouble with that son of yours, and it's tough, I know. Yeh can store stuff over at my place if yeh need to."

I never said there would be anything wrong with someone talking with her.


Beav, did you even read my post? Apparently not or else you're purposely taking what I said out of context.

I never said any of the things you claim. I can't have a discussion with someone who is going to take what I say and twist it into whatever meets their needs.


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

ATF current leadership and budget situation are more a result of their irresponsible gun walking operation, Fast and Furious and their (and Dept of Justice) lack of cooperation with subsequent Congressional investigations. ATF Acting Director Melson was demoted in 2011, ATF Deputy Director Hoover resigned in 2012, four senior ATF supervisors recommended for removal - all due to FF. Current Acting ATF Director Todd Jones is a part-timer! Seriously, he also works as a U.S. attorney in Minnesota.


ATF's recent changes to form 4473 drew head-scratching and some cries of racism. Question 10a Ethnicity asks you to check either

Hispanic or Latino

Not Hispanic or Latino

Question 10b then asks your race. Why?


Another $0.02,(This message has been edited by RememberSchiff)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Beavah: "So when are yeh calling up da [ACLU] and demandin' it behave like a more responsible, more politically savvy lobbyin' group?"


Well, I'd call Monday or Tuesday but the ACLU is closed on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eagle732, this is a forum, eh? Each post responds to what has been said by multiple people, over time and sometimes across threads. It ain't a private tete-a-tete. But to respond directly:


Pure speculation, you don't know if she looked stressed or even spoke to the gun shop owner about her beliefs. Apparently only her family knew of her beliefs.


I never said anything about Mrs. Lasko. I asked about whether yeh felt gun shop owners should refuse to sell to anyone who came off that way. Da same way bartenders should refuse to sell to anyone who is drunk. Are yeh goin' to answer or dodge again? :) As for Mrs. Lasko, though, several friends and neighbors knew of her beliefs, includin' some folks who knew her from da range.


Nope, and I never said there was. My stuff is all locked in a 2,000 pound safe bolted to the floor.

I never claimed that yeh did say that, and I'm glad yeh keep your firearms secured, especially if yeh have kids.


But now yeh have to come 'round to da second half of da question, eh? If you think that's the responsible thing to do in either case, then perhaps is it a responsible thing for everybody to do? Is it somethin' that could become a public policy restriction on da right to keep and bear arms? It has in your state. Should it be extended to others, like CT? Can we have those sorts of discussions without gettin' into da "cold dead fingers" reactions?


Lads who are workin' on Space Exploration merit badge can't purchase motors bigger than G-sized without demonstratin' they have da skills to handle 'em, under supervision. That's not a legal requirement, eh? That's just enforced by da community workin' with manufacturers and shops. Can we do somethin' like that with certain kinds of firearms or ammunition, perhaps?


Da NRA should have said "there are standards of responsibility for firearm ownership and sales which go beyond just what is legal. We as a community will do a better job of education and instruction for our members and others; we will take the lead in self-enforcement and holding others accountable. We will insist on proper funding of ATF so that our current laws are enforced, and we will target for removal any senators who filibuster ATF appointments because we feel that prudent oversight is important. We will work with others to support additional regulation in those areas which reinforce personal responsibility without overly penalizing the many responsible fellow citizens who handle guns responsibly."


That's what I'm not hearin' from da community, eh? Here or elsewhere. Instead we're pointin' with alarm at da Feinstein thing. It may be misguided, but at least da Senator from California is showin' some responsibility and initiative. Shouldn't we do better?





Link to post
Share on other sites

Beavah: "ah, there is some ACLU opposition to involuntary commitments, but a lot of that is justified, eh? Yeh don't really want da government bein' able to lock people up who haven't committed a crime very easily, do yeh? Da system is workable, but it's slow and there are too many hurdles or too many places where folks without sound legal advice can just get lost."


You can put the severely mentally ill in 3 places, Beavah: On the streets, which is unacceptable to me as a Christian; in a clinic or hospital where they can receive compassionate care, if if commitment is involuntary; or in a jail, which is the de facto mental health facility of our age. It will be an involuntary commitment either way, but one is inarguably better than the other.


"We should address mental health nationwide, eh? I reckon it would be great if both parties tackle that together, with adequate funding and a fair but streamlined system. Most lobbying groups try to build partnerships like that across political divides in order to be effective. It would be refreshing if da NRA reached out to da ACLU and the mental health and education lobbies and tried to build a national political consensus on this vital issue. That might accomplish somethin'. "


I doubt that will happen, as I doubt that this administration is the appropriate one to tackle this issue. It has too much baggage and by its way of conducting politics has created the greatest political divide and partisan animosity in decades.


There's no doubt that the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1970s and 1980s, which was an unfortunate partnership between the Nixon (and later, Reagan) administrations and the far-left academic devotees of R.D. Laing created much of the mess we are in, when Medicaid stopped paying for institutional mental health services for adults. Many of the long-term care facilities in state mental hospitals were closed, with the idea that hospitals with mental units (and which were always intended to be for short-term care and a quick turn-around) would take up the slack. Didn't work out so well for those without those willing and able to take care of them. The pharmacology revolution has helped many who would have been institutionalized on the past, but the many who have dropped through the cracks and who have no family or who have isolated themselves from their families.


Obamacare is likely to exacerbate the situation, as under Obamacare more patients are pushed into Medicaid and have to start a course of treatment with the cheapest medication, not the medication that a doctor feels is right for the individual patient. These restrictions tend to make mental illness worse and expose patients to dangerous side effects, the most common reason for the mentally ill to discontinue medication, as several research studies have shown. As a result, less than half of all people in mental health programs under Medicaid stick to their treatment plan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, AZMike, I don't see da President as bein' hyperpartisan, eh? I think that's largely da bias of da xenophobic branch of da modern Republican party. By any measure, it's those folks who have gone further and further out on a limb while everyone else, from liberal dems to old-school conservatives like myself have stayed where we are. Blamin' it on Obama is just a way of tryin' to excuse da juvenile behavior of folks like da current House of Representatives.


I'm not sure how Obamacare "pushes" people into Medicaid. You'll have to explain that one a bit. Yah, Medicaid has some cost controls, eh? Part of da cost controls are to establish a protocol of drug progressions rather than let every physician experiment on his/her own. That's what happens when yeh are in da insurance program of last resort, paid for by other people. Perhaps they can do better, but I reckon we'd all prefer 'em to keep costs down until the science actually establishes that an alternative is better.


Yah, we probably let da "mainstreaming" of folks with mental health issues go a bit too far. As yeh mention, a lot of it was good, because there were quite a few folks institutionalized who didn't need to be, who were put there by relatives just lookin' to warehouse 'em (or get at the money, or...). Da pendulum should swing back a bit.


No question that da mental health conversation should be the first one we should have, before divisive ones like gun control or puttin' armed guards in da schools.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta say, Beav, I'm uncomfortable with prohibiting your hypothetical woman from buying. Would you have a poll worker deny that woman the right to vote?


Agitated and convinced the economy is going to hell would describes me after most political discussions with my college-sophomore son. :) It strikes me as trampling on both the First and Second Amendments to deny me a purchase. You may write her opinion off a wing nut, but it's no crazier than some of the radical left economic ideas. If I want to spend my money preparing for something with probabilities way to the right (no pun intended) of the decimal point, that should be my perogative. Illogical and irrational are two different things.


From the perspective of the gun shop owner, that's a pretty tall order. With Dram Shop Laws, there are some fairly objective indicators bartenders can be trained to spot. Sure, if some one walks in a gun shop in a blue rage, slams a wad of cash on the table and say, "Give me the biggest gun you've got cause I'm going to shoot every so-and-so in my office," then no, you don't want to sell that guy a gun. But don't we already have a cooling-off period for handgun purchases for that very thing?


It seems to me there are a lot of folks under the care of mental health professionals who go out and do harm to themselves or others. If professionals have a hard time making the call, you think a shop owner can?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My mother worked as a social worker for the mentally ill. during the late 70's and 80's they were already letting them out on the street. Some I do think were fine to be out with medicine, but there were some real scary ones yelling on street corners and standing in the middle of the road. Since she retired in the 90's and I no longer live in a city that had a huge state hospital where when they were let out, they all stayed right in that city, I don't know how bad things have gotten. I would imagine unless your criminally insane, your an outpatient now.


For a while the release of the insane from the large state insane state hospital in my hometown, caused a mass exodous of everyone in the city. It was joked last one out turn out the lights. In recent visits, the insane did not stay so clustered and moved on and the city returned to being healthy. We do have the building of a large state mental institution in Concord NH. But I am not sure any of the buildings are used for that purpose anymore, so Concord, might have had the "release of the insane" problem itself in the 70's and 80's.


There definatly was abuse though, my mother when she worked there looked for people who should not have been hospitalized, to help them. Earlier in her life, my father had her locked up simply because she was emotional over him wanting to divorce her. My Aunt had to come from out of state to pull her out, not before she had some barbaric treatments done though. That experience made her get her Masters in the field and work her entire life at a State hospital in an attempt to watch for and protect the mentally insane. She ended up being promoted up to the Head of the Department.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta say, Beav, I'm uncomfortable with prohibiting your hypothetical woman from buying. Would you have a poll worker deny that woman the right to vote?


If votin' involved givin' her a high power rifle with a large magazine to carry into the polling place, then yah, sure, of course!


Da analogies to ordinary every day things from first aid to goin' to the polls all fail because da risks are so much less. In order to construct a valid analogy, yeh need somethin' that's as risky as handin' that sort of firearm over. What would yeh think of a flight instructor signin' off on da pilot certificate of a fellow who talked about da evil government and showed a lot more interest in takeoffs than in landings? Especially if da fellow wanted to rent da biggest, fastest plane possible with da most fuel?


If yeh want to stockpile food in a bunker awaitin' da fall of civilization, good on yeh. You're helpin' da economy by increasing demand and lettin' somebody build a business catering to nutters. No different than crystals or astrology or whatnot.


If yeh want to stockpile weaponry awaitin' da fall of civilization, though, that's a different matter. You're demonstratin' that yeh don't have da level of judgment required to be entrusted with that sort of stuff. No different than if yeh were loadin' up with silver bullets to prepare for witches and werewolves. Because when you're thinkin' like that, there's a heightened chance that you're goin' to start seein' the old lady across da street as being a witch, or da latest sensational news report as bein' a sign of da End Times that requires action.


I'm just fine with havin' an average citizen firearm enthusiast carryin' around town. He or she is goin' to be knowledgeable enough and reasonably skilled. I'm not as comfortable havin' a citizen who feels that they have to carry in order to protect themselves from largely imagined threats or because they see themselves as bein' militia defendin' da neighborhood against da Bad People or da Bad Times to Come. They don't have da training of militia or constables, and their belief in Bad People means they're more likely to see Bad People or Bad Times in places where there are just ordinary folk, eh? That can easily lead to an inappropriate response. Think Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman was da classic case of a wannabe cop out lookin' for Bad People, without da necessary trainin' and with a wrong sense of risk. Not a bad person, mind yeh, but not one who should have been enabled.


Now, how yeh manage that is a different question, eh? I agree with yeh that some of this falls outside da realm of what's prudent for regulation. Regulation can have undesired effects in ways that people exercisin' judgment do not. We don't want a situation where we're banning wheelbarrows because people in wheelchairs shouldn't be usin' 'em.


But we should be able to acknowledge that some people shouldn't use wheelbarrows, and a look on YouTube at Firearms Fails should allow folks to admit that some people aren't well enough trained or responsible with guns. I think that's what's been missing so far, eh? A notion of personal and communal responsibility among firearm enthusiasts and their lobby. Firearms enthusiasts who recognize that sometimes yeh have to take the keys away from some people before they hurt someone - that not everyone in every circumstance should have access to everything.


Rather than just obstructing, we should be active participants in a discussion of how to do that through a combination of education, training/certification, regulation, and community ethic.




Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...