Speak Out: Guns and Democrats

Posted by persnickety on Tue, Aug 27, 2013, at 4:36 AM:

I think you would do better to talk to Carl Kinnison. He has a gift for community relations. I worked under both of them and I found Strong to be aloof and he didn't seem to care too much. Carl is a caring professional that was a great chief.

-- Posted by groucho on Sun, Aug 25, 2013, at 10:45 PM

Replies (90)

  • This out today: "20 wounded in multiple stabbings at Pennsylvania high school"

    Ban those dangerous knives! We need licensing and permits for knives! People don't kill people, knives kill people!

    I think I've covered all the liberal democrat talking points.

    The story:

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/09/suspect-in-custody-after-reports-multiple-s...

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 10:16 AM
  • Also want to ban those dangerous women's high heels....woman in Texas killed her boy friend with her high heels. http://www.semissourian.com/story/2068415.html

    -- Posted by Schaefer's World on Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 10:26 AM
  • It's telling and sad that the statement below defines how things work in D.C.

    "I doubt this bill will pass, but we will lobby against it if need be," he added. "This is simply another shot against gun owners in this country."

    Could just substitute 'threaten, blackmail, bribe or withhold campaign donations' for 'lobby'.

    Fewer and fewer lawmakers do anything that is not in their own interest instead of the people's.

    -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 11:27 AM
  • My wife has a Swiss Army knife,looks fine in her spike heels and carries a nifty .380. What can I say other than "Yes Ma'am".

    -- Posted by rocknroll on Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 2:40 PM
  • Just hang on folks the republicans will take control of the Senate come November and the House will remain republican. With that accomplished that should pretty well slow down this far left movement quite a bit. Harry Reid would at that point become the minority leader see how he likes that for a while. Have a seat Harry.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 5:04 PM
  • http://www.examiner.com/article/another-anti-gun-california-lawmaker-legal-troub...

    "Anti-gun California State Sen. Leland Yee was arrested Wednesday morning by federal authorities on suspicion of public corruption, according to breaking stories in the San Jose Mercury News, Sacramento Bee and other news agencies, making him the second high-profile Golden State gun control proponent to wind up in trouble in the past month.

    "Charges against Yee, according to the criminal complaint, ironically include gun trafficking."

    Obviously, the more restrictions there are on guns, the more valuable the illegal ones he is running will be.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 7:45 PM
  • http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/26/california-state-senator-arrested-in-...

    I'll refrain from speculating what Archie Bunker would have said.

    -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 8:05 PM
  • Well Blender, once again you attack with name calling. I am a liberal and a Democrat. I have no interest in your "legally" owned gun, and I have no problem prosecuting you for any crime you commit.

    To everybody else, I would like to say, "Thank God, this young, ill student did not have access to a semi-automatic weapon".

    Any Democrat who supports expanded gun control are a hypocrite , pretty basic stuff ....

    -- Posted by Diseased Turtle on Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 10:46 AM

    I am offended. I have no qualms about stating my position and my political beliefs. I stand behind them, and I do not waiver just because the person I am conversing with has another opinion. I do listen and learn, but no one has yet convinced me there is any reason for my neighbor hunter to own a semi-automatic.

    -- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 6:37 AM
  • -- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 6:37 AM

    Reasoning,

    Is everything you own necessary or do you have some possessions that you just want to own.

    Perhaps your neighbor is a collector and just wants to own a semi-automatic. It is legal, and he is guaranteed that right. Why is his/her desire to own some object less important than your own?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 7:41 AM
  • -- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 6:37 AM

    As has been pointed out time and time again, constitutional rights to possess firearms is not about hunting.

    -- Posted by 356 on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 8:04 AM
  • The left just can't understand that semi-automatic means one shot with one pull of the trigger.

    President Kennedy was killed with a bolt action rifle. What liberals promote, knowingly or not is that only government should have guns.

    -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 8:15 AM
  • It's my right to bare arms and wear short sleeve shirts.

    -- Posted by Schaefer's World on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 8:32 AM
  • "constitutional rights to possess firearms is not about hunting." -- Posted by 356 on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 8:04 AM

    356, Is the constitutional rights to possess firearms about murder?

    Point, the original constitutional right to vote was not about women or blacks, but 'the people' have found a need to amend the original constitution.

    IMO That is the direction the discussion should head, with regard to the discussion of semi-automatic weapons and large, quick clips the cons outweigh the pros. IMO

    In the recent school knifing incident, had the student been wielding a semi-automatic weapon rather than two knifes, the five (5) minute rampage would have begot many more deaths and injuries.

    One could argue that the adult intervention would have been much less likely, so the rampage could have been even longer.

    -- Posted by notrump on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 11:29 AM
  • I agree armistice. This seems such a "given", I don't understand why anyone would oppose measures that ensure the safety of others.

    Old John, are you familiar with bump fire? And even if you are pulling each shot, just how many times could you pump your finger in a minute?

    -- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 12:02 PM
  • swamp, looks to me like being the minority in the senate has it's advantages. Nowhere has the democratic majority run over the minority republicans. Wouldn't bother me to see Harry in the minority. Remember 60 votes needed?

    -- Posted by left turn on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 12:36 PM
  • Reasoning,

    Is everything you own necessary or do you have some possessions that you just want to own.

    Perhaps your neighbor is a collector and just wants to own a semi-automatic. It is legal, and he is guaranteed that right. Why is his/her desire to own some object less important than your own?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 7:41 AM

    Reasoning, was the question too hard for you?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 1:11 PM
  • It isn't a pertinent question, Wheels.

    But I will answer for you. No. I have some possessions that are not necessary. The reason that isn't important, is that I don't have any unnecessary items that are created to kill. No unnecessary guns, no unnecessary bombs etc.

    Now, do I have an extra golf club? Maybe.

    -- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 1:52 PM
  • I don't understand why anyone would oppose measures that ensure the safety of others.-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 12:02 PM

    Registration? Gun free zones? Guns illegal with felons? Automatic weapons ban? I think the only measure you would like is a ban on all firearms?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 1:55 PM
  • Nowhere has the democratic majority run over the minority republicans. Wouldn't bother me to see Harry in the minority. Remember 60 votes needed?-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 12:36 PM

    Short memory?

    "Harry Reid Goes Nuclear, Senate Democrats End 60-Vote Filibuster"

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/katenocera/harry-reid-prepares-to-go-nuclear

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 1:57 PM
  • Now, do I have an extra golf club? Maybe.

    -- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 1:52 PM

    Not withstanding your addition of "created to kill", you have multiple items in your home that can and do kill... those Golf Clubs for instance. You do not need those Golf Clubs.... what if we organized a "committee" to take them from you. You do not "need" them, you simply desire them for your personal pleasure. Why are you justified in having an item that gives you pleasure while I might not be allowed to have a certain gun that would please me?

    And the question is definitely pertinent. You are no more privileged than I am or your neighbor is.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 2:09 PM
  • Guns are CREATED to kill. Golf clubs are NOT created to kill.

    You do not seem to understand Dug's phrase, "Dead is Dead".

    -- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 2:13 PM
  • -- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 2:13 PM

    Yes. Dead with a gun is no different than dead with a knife, dead with a heel, dead with a shot gun, dead with a piece of rope.

    You are not concerned about killing. You're concerned about guns.

    Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 2:16 PM
  • "Dead with a gun is no different than dead with a knife, dead with a heel, dead with a shot gun, dead with a piece of rope."

    The fallacy in the above argument is the SPEED at which the 'tool' can accomplish the task of killing.

    The recent knifing clearly offers evidence that a student has a much harder time killing masses with a knife than if he had an automatic weapon.

    Will banning semi-automatic weapons and large, quick clips fix the whole problem? No. The guns will be available on the black market. However, they will be harder for Little Johnny to get a semi-automatic weapon from dad's gun case, when little Johnny is having a bad day.

    -- Posted by notrump on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 2:36 PM
  • The fallacy in the above argument-- Posted by armistice on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 2:36 PM

    Another fallacy would be to assume he wanted to kill people. Maybe he was just nuts and was stabbing people everywhere and didn't intend to kill. Do you know his motive? Do you know that he didn't have access to a gun but decided to slip a knife into his backpack?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 2:39 PM
  • No BC, I want the guns out of the hands of those who are incapable of safely using them. The mentally ill, those who are not capable of understanding as Dug said, Dead is Dead.

    Dug, armistice is correct. He did not have a gun, so until you prove he passed it up for the knives, I will believe he did not have access to one.

    -- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 3:17 PM
  • "The mentally ill, those who are not capable of understanding"

    Reasoning,

    There are days when I think you Leftist Wing Nuts are mentally ill, with your obsessive compulsive phobia about guns. Especially when you start equating mentally ill with "not capable of understanding.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 4:21 PM
  • -- Posted by armistice on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 11:29 AM

    That is patently absurd and does nothing to support your original point or refute mine.

    Go spend a little time reading "The Federalist Paper then the Miller, Heller and McDonald decisions as well as Missouri's constitution.

    Missouri Constitution

    Article I

    BILL OF RIGHTS

    Section 23

    August 28, 2013

    Right to keep and bear arms--exception.

    Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

    Go look in the holster of law enforcement officers and you will find a semi automatic weapon because it is accepted as a more effective means of protecting himself/herself than a single shot or revolver.

    It is accepted we cannot prevent criminals from possessing semi or fully automatic weapons, so it is absurd to give the criminals the upper hand by restricting law abiding citizens to less effective tools.

    -- Posted by 356 on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 4:39 PM
  • He did not have a gun, so until you prove he passed it up for the knives, I will believe he did not have access to one. -- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 3:17 PM

    And until you prove he didn't have access to one then I will believe he did. A lot of assumptions on your part for someone 500 miles away from where it happened. You know, for fact, that he didn't have access to a gun? YOu know he wanted to kill people?

    Please provide a source other than "I will believe".

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 4:40 PM
  • Dug, It really does not matter IF this student had assess or not. However, it does prove that if a knife is used that less harm takes place. Thus, supporting the semi-automatic ban debate.

    -- Posted by notrump on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 4:53 PM
  • 356, You brought constitutional rights into the discussion. I pointed out, 'the people' have amended the constitution in the past, and will likely do so again.

    "so it is absurd to give the criminals the upper hand by restricting law abiding citizens to less effective tools"

    This is where we disagree. The amount of 'legal' semi-automatics guns on the market has a positive correlation to the number of illegal semi-automatic guns available. Reduce legal availability, illegal availability will also be reduced.

    Automatic weapons are unnecessary and IMO have cost far too many lives already.

    -- Posted by notrump on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 4:57 PM
  • Reasoning: Government and street gangs kill a heck of a lot more people than the mentally ill. It seems they don't understand that dead is dead.

    -- Posted by BCStoned on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 4:27 PM

    Someone who KILLS another, is mentally ill. Street gangs included.

    Your government reference, makes very little sense. Are you afraid of your local representative? He was voted by the people.

    -- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 5:47 PM
  • There are days when I think you Leftist Wing Nuts are mentally ill, with your obsessive compulsive phobia about guns. Especially when you start equating mentally ill with "not capable of understanding.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 4:21 PM

    Why I do believe you just called me a name. I guess you are frustrated.

    My so called "phobia" about guns, can't hold a candle to your fear of a mental test. Apparently some are afraid they won't meet the "gun totin'" criteria.

    -- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 5:49 PM
  • And until you prove he didn't have access to one then I will believe he did. A lot of assumptions on your part for someone 500 miles away from where it happened. You know, for fact, that he didn't have access to a gun? YOu know he wanted to kill people?

    Please provide a source other than "I will believe".

    -- Posted by Dug on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 4:40 PM

    Dug, I can prove he did NOT bring a gun to the school. He did attack, but without a gun. The proof is up to you, but perhaps the media will help you out soon.

    -- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 5:51 PM
  • It is accepted we cannot prevent criminals from possessing semi or fully automatic weapons, so it is absurd to give the criminals the upper hand by restricting law abiding citizens to less effective tools.

    -- Posted by 356 on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 4:39 PM

    It is accepted??? By who? Not I. Are you a defeatist?

    -- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 5:53 PM
  • It is accepted??? By who? Not I. Are you a defeatist?

    -- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 5:53 PM

    No, a realist.

    -- Posted by 356 on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 6:02 PM
  • My so called "phobia" about guns, can't hold a candle to your fear of a mental test. Apparently some are afraid they won't meet the "gun totin'" criteria.

    -- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 5:49 PM

    That is a little irrational on your part isn't it? You know nothing of me and claim I have a fear of a mental test.

    I passed the CCW test long ago. That means I can carry a gun, a knife or an ice pick if I choose. You do understand that CCW is not about guns alone I presume? Maybe you don't.

    If I go golfing I have a concealed carry weapon with mee, when my putter is positioned correctly in the center of my bag it is concealed and can be a deadly weapon. You going to try and stop that as well?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 6:52 PM
  • Wheels, You are not allowed to defend yourself against a snapping turtle with a putter. Remember all the fuss when some guy sliced a duck?

    I would gladly sit by a guy with a gun permitted today than sit by a guy with a confiscated gun on Tuesday. :)

    -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 7:16 PM
  • It is my wife's right to wear 4" heels, It's a right for a golfer to have a putter, It's a right for a hunter to carry a knife or have a gun, It's a right for a carpenter to have a hammer and on and on....the right turns to a wrong when a person uses one of these items to harm another person. High heels don't kill, putters don't kill, guns, knifes, hammers don't kill it's the person that turns these non-lethal items into lethal items that is the problem. All the background checks and controls will not stop a person from using a item to hurt or kill someone. We have a mental health problem here in the USA and that's what needs to be addressed and the powers to be have deaf ears and are blind to the facts. Know this isn't my normal short comment but until the ostriches get their heads out of their a**es and correct the mental health of our fellow Americans it will be more of the same.

    -- Posted by Schaefer's World on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 8:17 PM
  • -- Posted by semo471 on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 8:17 PM

    Semo471.

    Problem is, in this politically correct world you cannot point out the fact that you believe some one has a mental problem and needs help. You might offend someone. Better to let them go off the deep end and slash and/or shoot up the place.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 9:04 PM
  • -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 7:16 PM

    Old John,

    I do not like using someone's golf clubs. I am lucky to hit the ball with what I am used to. Well this friend wanted me to try out his brand new Big Bertha driver. I declined, he insisted, I declined and he insisted some more that I try it.

    OK to please him I did. The ball came off the club low, went about 75 or 100 yards and took a vicious hook and went down into the rough. A bird came straight up in the air and down he went. We went over and picked up the ball and there was a Meadow Lark stone cold dead laying on his back with his feet in the air.

    Unintentional, but I did feel bad over it.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 9:13 PM
  • -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 7:16 PM

    Old John,

    I do not like using someone's golf clubs. I am lucky to hit the ball with what I am used to. Well this friend wanted me to try out his brand new Big Bertha driver. I declined, he insisted, I declined and he insisted some more that I try it.

    OK to please him I did. The ball came off the club low, went about 75 or 100 yards and took a vicious hook and went down into the rough. A bird came straight up in the air and down he went. We went over and picked up the ball and there was a Meadow Lark stone cold dead laying on his back with his feet in the air.

    Unintentional, but I did feel bad over it.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 9:15 PM
  • Wheels, If you were a humane fellow you would have pulled your gun and put the bird out of his misery.

    -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 9:17 PM
  • Ooops! Double Dribble.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 9:18 PM
  • Old John,

    Too late to execute the poor bird, he was already deceased.

    I guess I could have pulled my concealed putter out of the bag and used that on him just to be sure. But then I would have let people know I had a concealed putter and at that time I did not have a CCW permit.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 9:21 PM
  • Was it a democrat bird?

    Regardless of how we argue this thing about guns, history tells us when people give up their right of individual self defense in favor of government protection, tyranny abounds.

    -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 9:35 PM
  • Dug, I can prove he did NOT bring a gun to the school-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 5:51 PM

    Nice spin. That's not what you said. You cannot prove that he didn't have access to a gun. That's what you said.

    Prove it.

    And you completely ignored the notion that a shot gun can't be used for a mass killing. Do you know much, if any, about guns? So you ban "large clips" and semi-automatic weapons. Won't do a thing if you don't know how guns operate.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 10:16 PM
  • Was it a democrat bird?

    -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 9:35 PM

    Well, if it was, I must have been using a Republican ball.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 10:38 PM
  • And you completely ignored the notion that a shot gun can't be used for a mass killing. Do you know much, if any, about guns? So you ban "large clips" and semi-automatic weapons. Won't do a thing if you don't know how guns operate.

    -- Posted by Dug on Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 10:16 PM

    I was in the Marines, Dug. I know exactly how a "gun" operates, for fun! Now, do you want a lesson on rifles?

    -- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 6:04 AM
  • Looks like we now have to put controls on golf balls or maybe the golfer ;-)

    -- Posted by Schaefer's World on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 9:04 AM
  • I know exactly how a "gun" operates, for fun! Now, do you want a lesson on rifles? -- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 6:04 AM

    Don't need a lesson. Could maybe give you one. Just need an answer to a question you refuse to address.

    All your liberal friends scream to have semi-automatic bans, clip bans, AR15 bans - on and on.

    How many people can be killed by a pump-shotgun in 5 minutes? I don't know and hope we never find out. But I can tell you this - your "bans" on the right to bear arms wouldn't stop anything.

    Just like your "gun free zones", "registration", "confiscation", "hand gun bans", etc.

    Yes, there is a question up there. Point is, your efforts to ban weapons is futile. A 12 gauge shot gun is a fearsome thing to behold if used incorrectly. Do you want to ban them too?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 10:04 AM
  • Coconut,

    It is my belief that most of the Leftists promoting the anti-gun drivel on these sites and around the country are doing so because they have been led like a bunch of sheep by the radicals at the top of the chain. They chant their key talking points like good little soldiers of the left.

    Look how easily they were led into supporting the fraud who is now President of the United States.

    Shows a lack of being able to think for themselves.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 11:00 AM
  • Gerald Hume was described in the affidavit as a "known schizophrenic (who) hears voices, and requires treatment" and who has had "several mental health interventions with OCPD" and a history of violent behavior.

    He didn't steal his guns or borrow them. He bought them.

    "He bought them like any normal person would -- he got them at Walmart," said Oklahoma City Police Capt. Dexter Nelson.

    Hume bought the rifles at the Walmart in Moore, Oklahoma, on September 25. The next day he bought the Glock at Gun World in the nearby town of Dell City, according to Nelson. Both are federally licensed gun dealers that conduct background checks. The checks, in theory, are supposed to stop certain people -- including the mentally ill with a history of violence -- from buying them-CNN

    See Dug, this is what I am fighting against. Mentally Ill people lie about their illness, perhaps they don't even know. There has to be checks and waiting periods enforced.

    AS to you question, why are you inquiring about a pump shotgun? How is your swing, is it loaded? 3 or 5?

    -- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 11:54 AM
  • AS to you question, why are you inquiring about a pump shotgun? How is your swing, is it loaded? 3 or 5? -- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 11:54 AM

    Still no answer from you. You want to ban all these things, including a pump shot gun?

    3 or 5 depends on the law in your state and what you are hunting. Just proves to me you didn't know much about guns. Where did you get that - google?

    Keep avoiding the questions! I know, they're hard for you.

    1-can a pump shot gun kill many many people in 5 minutes?

    2-do you support a ban on pump shot guns?

    I'll look for another deflect and spin move and no answer. You've done that about 5 times already. Now, the questions?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 12:34 PM
  • Dug????Where did I ever say I wanted to ban all guns????? Never!

    Quit putting words in my mouth, and try inserting your foot again.

    A pump shot gun can kill people in 5 min. The amount depends on the skill of the shooter.

    I have no interest in banning a pump shot gun.

    Now, answer my questions.

    -- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 1:19 PM
  • AS to you question, why are you inquiring about a pump shotgun? How is your swing, is it loaded? 3 or 5?

    -- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 11:54 AM

    I have a 410 bolt action shot gun that I purchased close to 50 years ago that will hold 7 3" 410 shotgun shells with the plug removed.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 1:26 PM
  • Now, answer my questions. -- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 1:19 PM

    I answered your questions. Thank you for finalling responding. Now, let's analyze the "anti-gun" logic.

    You are all for automatic/semi-automatic gun bans, large clip bans, registration of all firearms with the government, etc.

    Yet NOTHING you propose would prevent someone from using their pump shot gun for a massacre. And probably a really big massacre as well. Maybe a record massacre.

    See the futility of your ban on so many guns when the one you think is "OK" or "I have no interest in banning a pump shot gun" is just as lethal?

    Give it up. Bans don't work. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 2:01 PM
  • Dug, LISTEN (or read), I am for health professionals reporting mental illness, I am for an enforced waiting period (so that background checks can be completed) for the purchase of firearms. The FBI has determined that in 2012, 3,722 people were identified as ineligibly purchasing a firearm because the background check took longer than the required 3 days. The average time it takes for the FBI to determine that illegal purchasers are ineligible to receive firearms is 25 days.

    This one simple step, (plan ahead so that you can wait a month), would prevent impulsive suicide. 50% of suicides in the US are committed with a gun, and 90% of suicide attempts by gun are successful. Suicide attempts by jumping, 34% die, by drugs, 2%.

    I am not suggesting banning, I am suggesting safety and prevention.

    Let me say this again Dug, I am advocating for WAITING Periods and background checks.

    -- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 2:39 PM
  • Let me say this again Dug, I am advocating for WAITING Periods and background checks. -- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 2:39 PM

    So you agree that AR15s, large ammo clips, etc. should be sold along with fully automatic weapons?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 3:54 PM
  • -- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 2:39 PM

    Reason: I have always said that the background checks should tap a database where mental health professionals would list their patients into this database and also those on medication that might cause a person to lose touch with reality even briefly. After the mental health professionals feel that a person has been declared healthy and pose no threats than that persons name is removed from the database, when the medication has been stopped that person is also removed. I had a background check 2 yrs. ago for the purchase of a 9mm pistol and was approved in less than an hour, while waiting the dealer told me that some folks have to come back the next day in order to complete the background check.

    -- Posted by Schaefer's World on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 4:06 PM
  • If the average time in today's computer age is 25 days for the FBI to check a person's records, there is something definitely wrong. Maybe we need to let the IRS do the checking since they are now spying on all of us.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 4:21 PM
  • Something I was sent on the Internet today... bound to be factual if it comes from the Internet.

    Sensible Gun Control

    This explains why there has been no attempt on Mr. Obama!

    In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United Sta tes .

    In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States who later died from the wound.

    In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States .

    In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States .

    In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States .

    In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.

    In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.

    In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.

    In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen , TX .

    In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.

    In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.

    In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US .

    In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.

    In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

    In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

    In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

    In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis .

    In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown , CT.

    As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.

    Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

    Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservative was involved in any of these shootings and murders.

    SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.

    ...Best idea I've heard to date!

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 8:14 PM
  • HWWT, as astute as you always want to be, there is one important stat you forgot:

    Two disgruntled republicans killed 4500 Americans and a few hundred thousand Iraqis. Just wanted to set the recoed straight.

    -- Posted by left turn on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 9:18 PM
  • -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 8:14 PM

    Wheels: Wonder what makes the Democrats so disgruntled and angry.

    -- Posted by Schaefer's World on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 9:25 PM
  • Two disgruntled republicans killed 4500 Americans and a few hundred thousand Iraqis. Just wanted to set the recoed straight. -- Posted by left turn on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 9:18 PM

    And one disgruntled Nobel Peace prize winning democrat has had more US Soldiers killed in Afghanistan than any president - your guy Obama. Remember the "surge"? Remember the American kid that Obama ordered killed in Yemen I believe? With a drone?

    You don't have a leg to stand on.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 9:42 PM
  • -- Posted by left turn on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 9:18 PM

    Left: Guess we need to add the following wars and Americans killed caused by disgruntled Democrats: World War I = 117,000, World II = 405,000, Korean War = 37,000, and Vietnam War = 58,000.

    -- Posted by Schaefer's World on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 9:47 PM
  • I didn't mean to upset Lefty so badly. Wonder how I could make it up to him.

    I'll work on it. I'm sure I can think of something.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Apr 11, 2014, at 9:50 PM
  • "natural rights" rights that men possessed as a gift from nature or God.

    Wasn't God the dude that got pixxy over a bite of apple? Surely doubt God defines gun ownership as a natural right. Nor are there natural gun trees.

    -- Posted by survivalist on Sat, Apr 12, 2014, at 5:15 AM
  • BC, I reminded of a guy in the '60s that went full circle in extremes deciding his politics. I think in the end he came to believe not in left-right-moderate government, but decided government was the enemy of it's own self proclaimed purpose.

    Karl Hess III

    -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Apr 12, 2014, at 9:58 AM
  • -- Posted by BCStoned on Sat, Apr 12, 2014, at 12:22 AM

    Agreed and in general I am suspect of the ability of "mental health professionals" to determine much of anything. I've attended mental competency hearing and read untold numbers of psychiatric assessments with one often disagreeing with the previous assessment.

    -- Posted by 356 on Sat, Apr 12, 2014, at 11:58 AM
  • Do I trust Republicans with our natural rights more than Democrats? Of course not.

    -- Posted by BCStoned on Sat, Apr 12, 2014, at 12:22 AM

    I do not believe owning a gun is a natural right. John Locke (from whom the phrase, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness evolved) was a great thinker, and genuinely believed in the equality of man. Yet he mistakenly thought that humans were by nature rational and good, and on that premise they carried into political society the freedom of worship, the right to a voice in their own government, and the right of property. His idea is based on a flawed assumption. All humans are not good, and I am beginning believe even fewer are rational.

    -- Posted by Reasoning on Sat, Apr 12, 2014, at 7:25 PM
  • Self defense is a natural right. The gun is a tool for which to do so.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Apr 12, 2014, at 8:30 PM
  • Sounds to me like Reasoning figures some of us or not good enough to have a right to a voice in our government.

    Now I wonder who is to make that determination. Probably people like Reasoning and their Leftist Sidekicks I would bet.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Apr 12, 2014, at 8:42 PM
  • All humans are not good, and I am beginning believe even fewer are rational. -- Posted by Reasoning on Sat, Apr 12, 2014, at 7:25 PM

    Revealing introspective.

    I tend to think the opposite - no surprise. I believe that most people are good hearted and I hope that more are becoming more rational. Realizing that a president doesn't care personally about them. That the "talk" doesn't match the "walk". And that power corrupts all.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Apr 12, 2014, at 11:10 PM
  • Considering the reasons listed in the founders declaration, it is clear they understood very well about and made no assumptions regarding the rationale of mankind.

    -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Apr 12, 2014, at 11:15 PM
  • I tend to think the opposite - no surprise. I believe that most people are good hearted and I hope that more are becoming more rational. Realizing that a president doesn't care personally about them. That the "talk" doesn't match the "walk". And that power corrupts all.

    -- Posted by Dug on Sat, Apr 12, 2014, at 11:10 PM

    And there you have it! If you believe most people are good hearted and rational, why not accept what most people are saying? A survey conducted for the New England Journal of Medicine back in January 2013 found that 76% of Americans, support a complete background check for gun buyers (including 47% of NRA members)

    Your talk doesn't match your walk, Dug.

    -- Posted by Reasoning on Sun, Apr 13, 2014, at 8:00 AM
  • -- Posted by Reasoning on Sun, Apr 13, 2014, at 8:00 AM

    Reason: Any poll can have the affect that the poll taker wants by the wording of the question. Such as: 1)Do you want background checks for gun purchases? 2)Do you want stricter background checks for gun purchases. Sometime one word makes the differences in the poll percentages.

    -- Posted by Schaefer's World on Sun, Apr 13, 2014, at 8:47 AM
  • Your talk doesn't match your walk, Dug. -- Posted by Reasoning on Sun, Apr 13, 2014, at 8:00 AM

    Good and rational is a mental state. Doesn't mean you're right or wrong. This shows why you have so many issues with issues. Poll watching seems to be the basis for all your political persuasion?

    You cite one Journal and you're ready to roll. Kinda like hanging on every word and defending every word your president says without questioning it. That is unReasonable. Pun intended.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Apr 13, 2014, at 9:21 AM
  • A poll conducted shortly after the 2008 presidential election found that 65% of voters, including 64% of gun owners, support a five-day waiting period for handgun sales.1

    Another 2008 poll found that Americans strongly favor a waiting period prior to the delivery of a purchased firearm (86% favor this policy, while only 14% oppose).2

    A 2001 poll found that 73% of Americans support a five-day waiting period.

    Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 86% of American Adults believe a strict background check should be required for anyone looking to buy a gun. The survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on January 6-7, 2013 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

    -- Posted by Reasoning on Sun, Apr 13, 2014, at 12:59 PM
  • Out today: The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that fifty-two percent of likely voters (52%) disapprove of Obama's performance.

    The latest figures include 40% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16.

    Rational people. So, according to Rasmussen and your logic of "whatever the poll says we should do it" then Obama should resign.

    I'd be all for that.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Apr 13, 2014, at 1:27 PM
  • I'm sorry Dug, the title of this thread is Guns and Democrats. Unless you want to discuss our President's views on guns, you seem to be in the wrong place.

    Maybe you would prefer V.P. as President?

    I can supply more polls for the support of gun waiting periods. There is no need, even you know this is a good idea. Why would you not support a waiting period? I will not hold my breath, you never answer questions, just pose more of you own.

    -- Posted by Reasoning on Sun, Apr 13, 2014, at 1:52 PM
  • I can supply more polls for the support of gun waiting periods.-- Posted by Reasoning on Sun, Apr 13, 2014, at 1:52 PM

    Thanks for making my point. You dismiss rational polls you disagree with and embrace those that agree with you. That's irrational and unreasonable.

    Gun waiting periods are ridiculous. Why? Because you couldn't be more wrong.

    Ft. Hood would not have been stopped. The Denver movie shootings would not have been stopped. The CT school shooting would not have been stopped. The AZ shooting would not have been stopped. Funny that you support "polls" but not facts. Why would you support a waiting period when it clearly doesn't stop shootings?

    Because of your irrational fear of guns. Can't help you with that.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Apr 13, 2014, at 2:43 PM
  • -- Posted by Reasoning on Sun, Apr 13, 2014, at 12:59 PM

    Reason: The 2001 and 2008 polls are way too old to be relevant today. The January 6-7, 2013 Rasmussen poll asking if a person supports a strict background check means nothing. Define the word strict and give more details, then you would have a true poll. BTW, I support background checks but want to add to them any metal health issues and certain medications.

    -- Posted by Schaefer's World on Sun, Apr 13, 2014, at 3:49 PM
  • I am simply not prepared to surrender my rights based on polls no matter how accurate or inaccurate. People are fickle and easily swayed by events and emotions.

    I believe this is one of the reasons for the Bill of Rights so as not to be at the whim of politicians and the populace.

    -- Posted by 356 on Sun, Apr 13, 2014, at 4:33 PM
  • -- Posted by Dugtard on Sun, Apr 13, 2014, at 4:36 PM

    Dugtard: How else will the crazies be kept from buying guns legally. We all know they can steal guns or guy them illegally on the back market.

    -- Posted by Schaefer's World on Sun, Apr 13, 2014, at 4:47 PM
  • Adam Lanza's mother bought the guns he used, she paid for this with her life.

    Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people in 2007 on the Virginia Tech campus, had been deemed mentally ill by a judge, which is one of the criteria used to disqualify certain people trying to buy a gun. Others who could be potentially disqualified include convicted felons, fugitives, drug addicts and domestic abusers.

    Cho's case apparently slipped through the cracks.

    James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado, used his AR-15, two 9 mm Glocks, .40 caliber pistol and 12-guage shotgun which were all purchased legally, after his name was submitted to the National INSTANT Criminal Background Check System. Twelve people were killed. An extra waiting period would have made a difference.

    You are also ignoring the fact that often these are crimes of impulse and passion. Waiting might be all that is needed. I agree with Semo though, anyone being treated for a mental disorder, should be on the no buy list.

    -- Posted by Reasoning on Sun, Apr 13, 2014, at 6:44 PM
  • You are also ignoring the fact that often these are crimes of impulse and passion-- Posted by Reasoning on Sun, Apr 13, 2014, at 6:44 PM

    You don't "impulsively" go out and buy "AR-15, two 9 mm Glocks, .40 caliber pistol and 12-guage shotgun which were all purchased legally" and then kill people. It was clearly a planned event.

    Same is true of Columbine. Propane tanks, weapons, locking the doors to avoid security, etc. Very detailed planning. No impulse there.

    Lanza was impulse but he stole the gun and no "background check" of any kind would have made a difference. Just like the examples above.

    Cho is proof positive that someone who is insane can plan over months, record videos and carryout an attack. Is it your assumption that through all this planning he would have failed because he couldn't buy a gun? Instead of just stealing them?

    How many murdering thugs buy guns? How many fill out forms and go through background checks? Not most mass killers or homicide perps.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Apr 13, 2014, at 7:13 PM
  • -- Posted by Dug on Sun, Apr 13, 2014, at 7:13 PM

    Dug: Like the old saying goes - where's there a will there's a way. So is it when someone wants to kill others. We won't have zero gun murders any more than we will have zero car accidents. Our goals should be make to make that number as low as possible without infringing upon our rights to bare arms. I enjoy the right of shooting my 9mm Beretta at targets and BTW I can hit a gallon milk jug at 36 ft. with no problem.

    -- Posted by Schaefer's World on Sun, Apr 13, 2014, at 7:38 PM
  • semo - True - you'll never get to zero. Some say "1 death is better than 10" and that's true as well but banning guns or making ineffective barriers to using them is worthless.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Apr 14, 2014, at 10:40 AM
  • miccheck: Regarding Harry Reid with everything he has his hands in he is going to have a lot to answer too if he is connected to the situation out in Nevada over a land deal in reference to a wind mill farm totaling five billion dollars with the Chinese on the same land the rancher was grazing his cattle on.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Tue, Apr 15, 2014, at 8:06 AM
  • Harry is such an upstanding citizen and public servant, he deserves defending of such cruel accusations. With all the malice of the right wing whackos one would think he had stooped to giving his granddaughter campaign money to run a hobby business or even won reelection on the cemetery vote while opposing voter ID laws.

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Apr 15, 2014, at 2:31 PM

Respond to this thread