You can't have total control without infringing on the rights of SANE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.
The Guns Thread
- Thread starter LeadHead
- Start date
Not the way the grabbers want it, no. I never have felt good about anyone that wants to make important decisions while there is still so much emotion involved. Almost anyone knows that is not the best time to make such decisions.
Sadly there are people from both sides of the argument who can't stop talking long enough to actually explore what kinds of things can be done to keep the unstable sorts from getting guns. With better training or having more specialized people intervene in cases like this one where the police were alerted by parents that this young man was probably dangerous. This has to be done very carefully, as all of us could be on the end of an over zealous junior shrink's decision about our life. Right now if you have anything they can classify as "domestic violence" on your record, you can be prohibited from buying a firearm.
I know Richard Martinez said he wants gun control not sympathy. I look in that father's face and see the anguish I would feel. You can only wonder how loudly he was screaming about forfeiting any of the rights the second amendment gives us all before his son's senseless death. It would be interesting to follow his career back and see how many aquittals he enabled for defendents who later comitted more violent acts. Maybe he wants to change some of what the constitution, amendments to the constitution, and laws expanding the constitution say about such things as trial rights, rights to defense, and of course "Miranda"? I am betting that you could take our three most populated states, put the names of the people killed by murderers previously freed on a list, and the deaths caused by those freed killers would far out number those killed by guns in mass murders such as the most recent one in Isla Vista. Yet I don't want to take any of those rights away. Most of us would rather see some guilty go free, than more innocent people be punished, and that is right.
Yet look what gets used as a battle cry. (All this without a mention of the three who died from the knife wounds inflicted or the injuries from being hit with BMW.)
Sadly there are people from both sides of the argument who can't stop talking long enough to actually explore what kinds of things can be done to keep the unstable sorts from getting guns. With better training or having more specialized people intervene in cases like this one where the police were alerted by parents that this young man was probably dangerous. This has to be done very carefully, as all of us could be on the end of an over zealous junior shrink's decision about our life. Right now if you have anything they can classify as "domestic violence" on your record, you can be prohibited from buying a firearm.
I know Richard Martinez said he wants gun control not sympathy. I look in that father's face and see the anguish I would feel. You can only wonder how loudly he was screaming about forfeiting any of the rights the second amendment gives us all before his son's senseless death. It would be interesting to follow his career back and see how many aquittals he enabled for defendents who later comitted more violent acts. Maybe he wants to change some of what the constitution, amendments to the constitution, and laws expanding the constitution say about such things as trial rights, rights to defense, and of course "Miranda"? I am betting that you could take our three most populated states, put the names of the people killed by murderers previously freed on a list, and the deaths caused by those freed killers would far out number those killed by guns in mass murders such as the most recent one in Isla Vista. Yet I don't want to take any of those rights away. Most of us would rather see some guilty go free, than more innocent people be punished, and that is right.
Yet look what gets used as a battle cry. (All this without a mention of the three who died from the knife wounds inflicted or the injuries from being hit with BMW.)
Last edited:
I think virtually everyone realizes from both sides that people will find a way to kill people. Some like Richard Martinez seem totally hung up on the fact that he had 400 UNUSED ROUNDS, and that he had 3 pistols. So far I cannot find anything that is definitive on whether he used more than one of them or even why. It sounds like he came to the argument late on gun control, judging by his own admission. So we now have a man who the grabbers are using as a poster child who didn't seem to care now, and just lost his only child (however sad) who they want the nation to take dictation from on our rights to own weapons. Like most of his kind they note his shooting background (shooting birds at home and being an mp) as if he is some kind of an expert.
the shooter was a sick loser in life,he should be treated the same in death,no sympathy,no media coverage on his manifesto,or his background.Just bury the pos in an unmarked grave. These wacko's search for notoriety in doing heinous act's.I say quit giving them the time of day.
People from England should keep their mouth shut about anything related to gun freedom, rights,laws or anything other freedoms we enjoy concerning firearms here in America, since they don't have, gave away or however they lost their right to bear arms.......so to you mrs. Aunt from England.........SHUT YOUR YAPPER!
5,814 FUCK YES!!!
Arizona, you can NEVER have enough!
Arizona, you can NEVER have enough!
I hope those do not belong to you.
Last edited:
I was searching youtube for some videos of the .300 Ultra Mag rifle. That is a rifle I would like to purchase for myself. I was undecided with some of the video's I watched. Meaning, do you think that it is ok to shoot small game and or rodents with large caliber rifles? I would have never thought that shooting those animals with such a large caliber round. Would do what it does in the videos. I would not post any of the videos I watched. Just incase it offends others. I would like other opinions on this subject.
