115
Vet charged in sniper killing : Swingers Discussion 2164671041
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsVet charged in sniper killing
TOPIC: Vet charged in sniper killing
GoTo Page: Less ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Start   41 to 50 of 97   End
User Details are only visible to members.
Background checks are only the tip of the iceberg. IMO, proof of prior safety training for all firearms purchased (the same type you'd need to acquire to get a hunting license) would do wonders to avoid future incidents.

When I was very young, my sister and I were both given a hunter safety course and taught how to fire, reload, and clean many different types of guns from pistols to black powder rifles to shotguns. One weekend course, one time, for a nominal fee payable to the state that registered us as "SAFE" hunters. Throughout our lives were frequently left in a house with loaded guns of every type and caliber in easily accessible places. We suffered 0 accidents because we were both trained and taught their proper use and handling. We're still avid shooters and enjoy the sport and 30 years later, 0 accidents.

Did the safety course ensure an accident free life, probably not. Did it make us far more aware of the dangers associated with a firearm. Hell yes. How many weekend warriors are "accidentally" shooting themselves or someone they care about and feeding an unlimited supply of ammunition into the anti-gun debate? How many people who've never shot a gun in their lives are handed a semi-automatic rifle, 30 minutes after they've decided they need one for whatever reason or another? These people are the statistic that won't ever go away.

If owning a gun is a right as a citizen, then being taught how to use that gun safely should be a requirement of citizenship.

I'll leave the debate about mental health and firearms to people with cooler heads than mine.

Long Beach CA
Username hidden
(1757 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Well I am for getting mental heath issued covered. But how about enforcing the laws we all ready have on the books now. Like I said before they can trace arms now. It just takes time. Yes even from private sells before some one screams. It is just a long process. Biden himself even said the new laws would not stop the shootings. So why rush to pass them. Why not sit back and try to figure out what would help. Try something new get it fixed right the first time.

Berryville VA
Username hidden
(1750 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
The dilemma here is comical.

We can't decide on "who" should be the bearer of the torch in deciding what type of firearm is or isn't acceptable for home defense or sport. We've argued that only people who have a firm understanding of weapons and safe firearms use should be a part of that group making those decisions. We as a people are united in making sure our guns aren't taken away due to some stupid knee-jerk law made by some idiot who's never even fired a gun in their life. Hell, we're up in arms at the mere THOUGHT that someone who HATES guns would even be considered as a member of that panel making the decisions for all US citizens. We hold rally's and call or write our congressmen en mass...

But science and math and technology, meh....we're perfectly happy to let people who don't understand any of that at all decide whats best for everyone.

Long Beach CA
Username hidden
(1757 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Jimmy:

With that last line, you have just eliminated 9/10 of the posters on these political forums and almost every righty.

Not that you are wrong about eliminating noise makers, I just don't buy into bans... Not when a national mental health program, national weapon regerstry and licensing is and should be simple to do.

Not only that, but a national mental health program will help this nation identify the nations mental health problems on a grander scale. It does more good than any ban possibly could do.

Hazle Township PA
Username hidden
(7366 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
There really is no hand held or crew served weapons banned.

Berryville VA
Username hidden
(1750 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
The "pro gun" people seem to be OK with not having the weapons which are currently prohibited. I assume they'll be OK with other arms being prohibited, the moment it becomes law.

Flat Rock NC
Username hidden
(2984 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
A nuclear weapon is an 'arm'. You are not allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Now, you'll say this is bombastic and hyperbole - but bear with me.

A nuke is on the extreme end of the spectrum, but it is still an 'arm' at the end of the day. You can't have one. Is this 'infringing' on your 2nd amendment right? If so, would you prefer everyone have nukes in their basement? No? So you agree that certain limitations can and should exist.

There are plenty of weapons people aren't allowed to have, so we've already established that limitation can and must exist. What we're left with isn't some idealistic battle about slippery slopes, we're left with negotiations on precisely where falls the line of balance between "unnecessarily dangerous" and "necessary for freedom/safety".

To do that, we'll have to let cooler heads prevail and actually discuss things like 'facts', then dismiss wild assertions and polarized insults, and so on. The first step, I suppose, would be to ignore anyone who claims either "We should get rid of all guns!!!" or "They're gonna take all our guns!!!" as having nothing of value to contribute.

Easton PA
Username hidden
(79 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"well regulated' simply means well trained. They didn't want to have to teach everyone how to use a weapon.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(16846 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
LOL damn you again Robert. SCOTUS has ruled we can have our firearms.I was responding to Ghost and him saying that Scalia was saying in his ruling for the state to regulate.I really don't read that in the ruling. I have a copy of Dc vs Heller here in my hands and not off the internet. Even reading it online I can't find him saying that. I understand the constitution as well as you do Ghost if not better by reading some of your post. Almost every state has the same protection as Virginia does so next argument.

Berryville VA
Username hidden
(1750 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Vacp:

Here is the memo you didn't get after the fall of the confedercy... State rights don't trump federal.

So your state constitution can say that you must receive a blow job from any woman you command to do so... And if the federal government says no to that... The answer is no.

Hazle Township PA
Username hidden
(7366 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Start   41 to 50 of 97   End
TOPIC: Vet charged in sniper killing