Originally Posted by jmac00
Thanks for the video post. Officer Pyle was one of my academy instructors when I attended the police academy in San Jose at Evergreen Valley College. He is a great officer with a good deal of common sense. Often disliked by the San Jose police chief at the time. You see, the chief is like many political chiefs, anti-gun. They almost have to be in order to get hired by the liberal politicians, especially in California.
So you drove 400 miles roundtrip just to eat at a Luby's in Killeen ?
Originally Posted by ga-hvac-tech
Must have been some damn tasty food.
I have eaten at that same Luby's in Kileen, Texas quite a few times and I don't even live in Texas. But, I have done HVAC consulting for Fort Hood many times and Luby's is almost next door to the gate of Fort Hood.
Good stuff right there. I have guns for hunting and am about to take a CCW class and starting to look for a carry gun. Some of the places I go to in the city aren't the greatest.
Originally Posted by jmac00
Ive only eaten in one cafeteria style restaurant and it sucked...... I have eaten in school and hospital cafeterias and they were much better in my opinion.
Obama is not going to take your guns.... he is just going to restrict the sale of certain types of weapons and accessories. Something I believe the framers would be in agreement with.
He needs to reenact the 1791 militia act that never really got off the ground and order all men 17-45 to regular training. Maybe issue them all the same type weapon.... like an 03A3. Maybe that would shut the whiners up.
Not taking the guns.... restricting..... framers..... 2nd amendment explained on you tube by people who leave parts out even though it is a short sentence.....
Melt those guns and mags down into ingots of steel and send them off to china where they will turned into inexpensive harbor freight and northern supply tools.
Obama isn't going to take your guns.
It is a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment and upheld by the Supreem court.
Many of you conservs just need something to be angry about or a cause you need to stand up for.
That seems to somehow give you some sense of self worth.
What does need to be discussed is if you want these semi automatic weapons you should have to pass stricter measures to get them, such as go before a review board or more indepth background check and be required to have a gun safe.
Simple restrictions to insure that if you have them you at least lock them up properly so your crazy a$$ son can't get them to massacre you and 26 other innocent people with it or you are some type of crazy person and yet are allowed to purchase one.
But it seems none of you are willing to discuss this.
And I am just having a hard time trying to understand why?
Please enlighten me.
How bout lets have an honest debate about this gun issue.
Corny and mcjo tech
What part of "Shall not be infringed" supports the Assault weapons ban?
Obama and the libs in congress cannot "take" our guns because it isn't legal to pass an ex post facto law, but if they could do so, they certainly would, IMO.
To call the violence problem in this country a gun problem is foolish and naive and, IMO, ignores the root behavior that is the REAL problem.
Then we also need to define what was meant by the words "to bear arms"
Originally Posted by jpsmith1cm
So in your opinion what is the Real problem?
And what is wrong with stricter gun rules for purchasing semi automatic weapons other then it may be inconvenient?
Or do you want anyone including mentally deranged individuals to be able to purchase them so their rights are not infringed on?
The entire legal meaning of the Second Amendment was spelled out quite clearly in the District of Columbia vs Heller decision.
It's dense, legalese, but, in short, "to keep and bear arms" mean to own and use arms in common and legal pursuits.
It's good reading, albeit a bit dry.
As far as the REAL problem, I'm not 100% sure, really.
What makes a person WANT to kill others?
What makes a person WANT to commit acts such as this one?
What makes 99.9999999% of gun owners NOT kill people while that 0.000000001% does?
What has CHANGED in our society in recent years that has led to this condition?
I can tell you that it ISN'T guns that are the problem.
Respect for life and our fellow man, maybe?
Nah. Couldn't be something so simple, could it?
Also from the Supreem Court:
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons
So it is not unconstitutional for the government to limit the purchase of semi automatic rifles if it can be passed thru congress and signed by the president.
Therefore your contention that their rights to bear arms are being infringed upon is moot.
I do however think that you have some valid points regarding why these massacres are occurring and they should also be addressed.
You point out perhaps why but offer no solutions.
Ok, just so everyone is on the same page, mass killing of this sort or nothing new, nothing unique to this country, and are fairly well documented. The rate of these where actually highest in 1929, and 2000-2009 was marked by a reduction in the rate. AKA the rate of these is probably linked to dips in the economy and when people start to feel helpless.
I like the noise they make and how whatever you are aiming at reacts to the bullet if you hit it.