The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Kinda cute she has a bill ready to pull out of her ass to present to congress as early as tomorrow. The Dems need to cool their heels or they are going to loose big time in 2012. Oh well I suppose ammo and component prices will be going through the roof again. Please don't consider me heartless because none of it matters in light of the weekends events, just rambling.

and no one should be able to buy stockpiles of ammunition used by the 22-year-old assailant.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/01 ... z1AbE31M3w

So less than a box of ammo is now a stockpile? Then I must have a fucking warehouse.

“The ability to buy a weapon that fires hundreds of bullets in less than a minute,”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/01 ... z1AbDd2C6o

...Really?

AmirMortal wrote:

and no one should be able to buy stockpiles of ammunition used by the 22-year-old assailant.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/01 ... z1AbE31M3w

So less than a box of ammo is now a stockpile? Then I must have a fucking warehouse.

“The ability to buy a weapon that fires hundreds of bullets in less than a minute,”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/01 ... z1AbDd2C6o

...Really?

God damn my SKS and its ability to fire hundreds of bullets per minute. If I get really good with stripper clips.

And, for that matter, my revolver. Speedloader ftw.

I guess the only thing I should be allowed is my wife's 10-ga break action single shot, which only fires a .67 caliber slug that's capable of blowing a hole through a man that you could toss softballs through.

eelj wrote:Kinda cute she has a bill ready to pull out of her ass to present to congress as early as tomorrow. The Dems need to cool their heels or they are going to loose big time in 2012. Oh well I suppose ammo and component prices will be going through the roof again. Please don't consider me heartless because none of it matters in light of the weekends events, just rambling.

Gonna have to call you on that one. Who's your idea of a viable GOP nominee for 2012?

eelj wrote:Kinda cute she has a bill ready to pull out of her ass to present to congress as early as tomorrow. The Dems need to cool their heels or they are going to loose big time in 2012. Oh well I suppose ammo and component prices will be going through the roof again. Please don't consider me heartless because none of it matters in light of the weekends events, just rambling.

That bill will be marked DOA, the NRA will bring in contributions by the truck load to keep that one from passing. And the gun manufacturers too. I think New York has the most restrictive gun laws in the US, more than California or Massachusetts. Arizona seems to be like Alaska and Vermont, anyone can carry without a license, so they are at the other end of the spectrum.

The only gun negative news report I heard was about the 30 cartridge magazine that Loughner used. I agree, the Demos need to be very cautious in the run up to 2012.

Argh... just as dumb as that guy on Michael Moore's website calling the Glock 19 an assault weapon because of the 30rd mag.

highdesert wrote:I think New York has the most restrictive gun laws in the US, more than California or Massachusetts.

None of those states hold a candle to Illinois. I wish our gun laws were as lax as CA, MA, or NY.

Also 30 round mags should be illegal in a Glock 19 IMO just because it looks so freaking stupid....


(coming from a G19 owner)

People just don't get that. I think we're going to get shouted down on Daily Kos every Tuesday and Wednesday now. See our boilerplate below:


I don't know if anyone will listen though...

Maybe the Reps will blame the shootings all on Palin and sacrifice her and her "politcal future."

flemco wrote:

eelj wrote:Kinda cute she has a bill ready to pull out of her ass to present to congress as early as tomorrow. The Dems need to cool their heels or they are going to loose big time in 2012. Oh well I suppose ammo and component prices will be going through the roof again. Please don't consider me heartless because none of it matters in light of the weekends events, just rambling.

Gonna have to call you on that one. Who's your idea of a viable GOP nominee for 2012?

You misunderstood my post. What makes you think I have a gop candidate in mind?

Simmer down wrote:Maybe the Reps will blame the shootings all on Palin and sacrifice her and her "politcal future."

one can only FRIGGIN' HOPE.

Simmer down wrote:Maybe the Reps will blame the shootings all on Palin and sacrifice her and her "politcal future."

I'm sure there are many in the GOP who'd be happy, even eager, to do that, starting with most of the 2012 presidential hopefuls. Watch their statements closely to see how the insinuations drip through.

If people wanted to do something useful, they might ask the meaningful question of how someone with a well-known history of threatening behavior, who was apparently "known to the police," and showed all signs of a significant psychiatric disorder was never evaluated by medical professionals or in some other way put on the NICS no-buy list. I'm particularly disturbed by the behavior of his classmates, who apparently were terrified of him, and the professor & college he was attending that seems to have done nothing to protect its students or to protect the general public. His parents must also have known he was "off." Few people know this, but the NICS hotline is open to anybody who wants to make a call. Involuntary committal to a psychiatric hospital is also not that difficult to have done, especially when an individual crosses the "threat to himself and others" threshold. Yeah, yeah, I know he could have gotten a gun from a non-FFL dealer or stolen one, etc., but if he'd been on the NICS list he would not have gotten the gun where he did (Sportsman's Warehouse, apparently). My point is that while we are all responsible for our own behavior, we are also all responsible for the public good, including public safety, and in this young man's case, the warning signs were so clear that people who knew him were already speculating that he was going to go on a shooting rampage, yet everyone assumed they were personally incapable of doing anything to stop it.

eelj wrote:

flemco wrote:

eelj wrote:Kinda cute she has a bill ready to pull out of her ass to present to congress as early as tomorrow. The Dems need to cool their heels or they are going to loose big time in 2012. Oh well I suppose ammo and component prices will be going through the roof again. Please don't consider me heartless because none of it matters in light of the weekends events, just rambling.

Gonna have to call you on that one. Who's your idea of a viable GOP nominee for 2012?

You misunderstood my post. What makes you think I have a gop candidate in mind?

Ah so. Are you talking about losing more seats?

ZJohnson wrote:If people wanted to do something useful, they might ask the meaningful question of how someone with a well-known history of threatening behavior, who was apparently "known to the police," and showed all signs of a significant psychiatric disorder was never evaluated by medical professionals or in some other way put on the NICS no-buy list.

The whole issue of mental health, crime, and individual rights is a big one. I composed a lengthy reply, but I want to give it some more thought before posting. Briefly, however, a diagnosis of mental illness is not one of the specfic categories of prohibited persons that NICS enforces (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/iden ... rsons.html).

Porkroast wrote:

highdesert wrote:I think New York has the most restrictive gun laws in the US, more than California or Massachusetts.

None of those states hold a candle to Illinois. I wish our gun laws were as lax as CA, MA, or NY.

Also 30 round mags should be illegal in a Glock 19 IMO just because it looks so freaking stupid....


(coming from a G19 owner)

I believe New Jersey is actually the most restrictive?

Porkroast wrote:

highdesert wrote:I think New York has the most restrictive gun laws in the US, more than California or Massachusetts.

None of those states hold a candle to Illinois. I wish our gun laws were as lax as CA, MA, or NY.

Also 30 round mags should be illegal in a Glock 19 IMO just because it looks so freaking stupid....


(coming from a G19 owner)

Sorry to disagree, but I think our Illinois gun laws are just fine. They could even tighten them up a bit in my opinion! I just hope we can hang on to the reputation of being 1 of only 2 states that don't allow concealed carry! I'm fast becoming a minority on this forum for these beliefs .

flemco wrote:

eelj wrote:Kinda cute she has a bill ready to pull out of her ass to present to congress as early as tomorrow. The Dems need to cool their heels or they are going to loose big time in 2012. Oh well I suppose ammo and component prices will be going through the roof again. Please don't consider me heartless because none of it matters in light of the weekends events, just rambling.

Gonna have to call you on that one. Who's your idea of a viable GOP nominee for 2012?

I think huntsman would stand a fair chance, except that he's a. mormon, and b. not crazy enough.

Grove wrote:
Sorry to disagree, but I think our Illinois gun laws are just fine. They could even tighten them up a bit in my opinion! I just hope we can hang on to the reputation of being 1 of only 2 states that don't allow concealed carry! I'm fast becoming a minority on this forum for these beliefs .

Wait, what's wrong with concealed carry?

flemco wrote:

Grove wrote:
Sorry to disagree, but I think our Illinois gun laws are just fine. They could even tighten them up a bit in my opinion! I just hope we can hang on to the reputation of being 1 of only 2 states that don't allow concealed carry! I'm fast becoming a minority on this forum for these beliefs .

Wait, what's wrong with concealed carry?

Grove doesn't like it - and there are actually quite a few firearms owners who don't - for a variety of reasons I imagine. There are even more who aren't too fond of open carry. Firearms owners cover a surprisingly wide swath of all of the political issues.

flemco wrote:

eelj wrote:Kinda cute she has a bill ready to pull out of her ass to present to congress as early as tomorrow. The Dems need to cool their heels or they are going to loose big time in 2012. Oh well I suppose ammo and component prices will be going through the roof again. Please don't consider me heartless because none of it matters in light of the weekends events, just rambling.

Gonna have to call you on that one. Who's your idea of a viable GOP nominee for 2012?

Who was viable in 2010? The problem is that when you have a bad economy (I hope it improves soon) and then you have an emotional hot button issue like gun control, and one party is identified as the one that is coming after your right to a tool of self defense, that adds up to motivation for the crazy base of right wingers to get out to vote more Democrats out of office despite the fact that many on the right are sowing the seeds of destruction for our country.

Viable candidates have nothing to do with anything when irrationality is at play. All a candidate has to say is, "I am for defending freedoms from those who want to take away your right to own a firearm".

Just tell them 'Vote for me and all your wildest dreams will come true.'

Nalpoleon Dynamite

mark wrote:

flemco wrote:

Grove wrote:
Sorry to disagree, but I think our Illinois gun laws are just fine. They could even tighten them up a bit in my opinion! I just hope we can hang on to the reputation of being 1 of only 2 states that don't allow concealed carry! I'm fast becoming a minority on this forum for these beliefs .

Wait, what's wrong with concealed carry?

Grove doesn't like it - and there are actually quite a few firearms owners who don't - for a variety of reasons I imagine. There are even more who aren't too fond of open carry. Firearms owners cover a surprisingly wide swath of all of the political issues.

Thanks , Mark. Couldn't have said it any better myself!

MtnMan wrote:

ZJohnson wrote:If people wanted to do something useful, they might ask the meaningful question of how someone with a well-known history of threatening behavior, who was apparently "known to the police," and showed all signs of a significant psychiatric disorder was never evaluated by medical professionals or in some other way put on the NICS no-buy list.

The whole issue of mental health, crime, and individual rights is a big one. I composed a lengthy reply, but I want to give it some more thought before posting. Briefly, however, a diagnosis of mental illness is not one of the specfic categories of prohibited persons that NICS enforces (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/iden ... rsons.html).

I agree with MtnMan that mental health is a very complicated issue when it comes to rights, freedoms, and responsibility. Someone with a mental illness can function in society as well as someone without, if they are being treated and they manage their symptoms. All that we can act upon in a free society is behavior that threatens the safety of the public significantly enough so that the rights of the individual in question must be forfeited to preserve the rights of others. That is an extremely delicate balance that unfortunately is not usually determined until after a significant crime has been committed. With the emphasis on protecting privacy and individual rights, there will be many people like this man who can slip through cracks and not receive intervention. We have to figure out where the intervention points are.

There is such a general lack of understanding about the mentally ill as opposed to people who are psychopaths, versus people who are under the influence of substances. There is very little treatment available for people that is willing to be paid to help people. There is also an incredible stigma attached to receiving treatment, that we are in a real bind as to how to make society truly safer, if that is possible at all.

For advocates of more gun control the answer is simplistic or idealistic, get rid of guns or make it harder for people to get them. The problem is that the people who would take the time to go through the hurdles of getting a gun legally, are less likely to be the people who become mass murders, so we are left with laws that do nothing to increase safety, and they put government in opposition to law abiding citizens.

We need to look at the root causes of violence rather than at tools used to commit violence.

Caliman73 wrote:

MtnMan wrote:

ZJohnson wrote:If people wanted to do something useful, they might ask the meaningful question of how someone with a well-known history of threatening behavior, who was apparently "known to the police," and showed all signs of a significant psychiatric disorder was never evaluated by medical professionals or in some other way put on the NICS no-buy list.

The whole issue of mental health, crime, and individual rights is a big one. I composed a lengthy reply, but I want to give it some more thought before posting. Briefly, however, a diagnosis of mental illness is not one of the specfic categories of prohibited persons that NICS enforces (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/iden ... rsons.html).

I agree with MtnMan that mental health is a very complicated issue when it comes to rights, freedoms, and responsibility. Someone with a mental illness can function in society as well as someone without, if they are being treated and they manage their symptoms. All that we can act upon in a free society is behavior that threatens the safety of the public significantly enough so that the rights of the individual in question must be forfeited to preserve the rights of others. That is an extremely delicate balance that unfortunately is not usually determined until after a significant crime has been committed. With the emphasis on protecting privacy and individual rights, there will be many people like this man who can slip through cracks and not receive intervention. We have to figure out where the intervention points are.

There is such a general lack of understanding about the mentally ill as opposed to people who are psychopaths, versus people who are under the influence of substances. There is very little treatment available for people that is willing to be paid to help people. There is also an incredible stigma attached to receiving treatment, that we are in a real bind as to how to make society truly safer, if that is possible at all.

For advocates of more gun control the answer is simplistic or idealistic, get rid of guns or make it harder for people to get them. The problem is that the people who would take the time to go through the hurdles of getting a gun legally, are less likely to be the people who become mass murders, so we are left with laws that do nothing to increase safety, and they put government in opposition to law abiding citizens.

We need to look at the root causes of violence rather than at tools used to commit violence.

+1,000,000

You are far more eloquent than I, but that is almost exactly what i was thinking.