Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Sandy Hook shooter wore Nike Zoom KV

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sandy Hook shooter wore Nike Zoom KV

    When the shooter left the house that day, he could have chosen any shoe in his closet. Did he pick his Clogs or his thongs? No. Did he pick his Birkenstocks, or no shoes at all? No. He knew he would have to endure possible jumping and running, with the extra protection only a closed toe shoe can provide. In particular, one with added heel support and thicker cushioned sole, light weight, and top notch durability.

    He chose the Nike Zoom KV. The Zoom KV is no ordinary shoe. It is high tech equipment designed for the professional athlete. Key features of enhancement are, "Relentless", "Adaptable", "Dominance".
    Nike KD 5. Kevin Durant Basketball Shoe. Nike.com


    Could the shooters' mobility have been enhanced by such equipment? I think the endorsement of professional basketball players, is a resounding yes.


    Does your average civilian really need such a high tech shoe?

    Shouldn't we limit the access of such shoes to the general public? Keeping this high tech equipment to the professionals where it belongs.

  • #2
    Re: Sandy Hook shooter wore Nike Zoom KV

    Yah, yah, yah - I suppose there is some gallows humor to be had from taking the arms arguments to the extreme.

    Nonetheless - there are 20-some-odd little graves there in Newtown, where I'm sure the loving parents & families & friends & total strangers, for God's sake, do their best to warm the cold soil with their tears.

    Could you please wait a bit - some decent interval - before we recommence the feeding frenzy? Thanks.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: Sandy Hook shooter wore Nike Zoom KV

      Originally posted by hoosier88 View Post
      Yah, yah, yah - I suppose there is some gallows humor to be had from taking the arms arguments to the extreme.

      Nonetheless - there are 20-some-odd little graves there in Newtown, where I'm sure the loving parents & families & friends & total strangers, for God's sake, do their best to warm the cold soil with their tears.

      Could you please wait a bit - some decent interval - before we recommence the feeding frenzy? Thanks.
      Most if not all would still be dead from gunshot wounds even if guns were banned from law abiding citizens. Banning guns from law abiding citizens will not stop crimes like this one.

      So tell me again just how horrible it is for left wing gun control nuts to try to make political hay over the death of 26 innocent people. That Hoosier is what is particularly odious.
      Last edited by CharlesD; 01-11-2013, 03:32 PM.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: Sandy Hook shooter wore Nike Zoom KV

        Originally posted by CharlesD View Post
        Most if not all would still be dead from gunshot wounds even if guns were banned from law abiding citizens. Banning guns from law abiding citizens will not stop crimes like this one.
        But how about banning guns from non law abiding ones or the insane? I'm a concealed carry licenced firearms owner, but I intend its use for hunting and self-defence. I'm not a criminal or nut seeking weapons with high capacity magazines that I know can wipe out swaths of people extremely efficiently.

        To me, I think we do need some better regulations. For example, whilst quick criminal background checks are available, the state of checks on mentally ill people are alarmingly poor right now. Such types repeatedly wind up the perpetrators of shootings, including mass shootings. That has to be rectified IMO for setting up a national database along with criteria and an appeals process for review for who should go on the list. I also see no problem requiring private transfers of guns to perform background as with licenced gun dealers. We have people on terrorist watch lists who aren't even banned...WTF. They should be put on a ban list and given a right of appeal if they think it's unwarranted. IMO, there should be stronger oversight and sanctions against straw purchasers, including a 'reasonable suspicion' investigative trigger and purchase halt on people who trigger reasonable suspicion of doing so, especially if we're talking about people who buy guns like they're buying their next pack of cigarettes, don't seem to be able to afford it, etc, that raise such reasonable suspicion. Again, an investigative and review process should be in place so individuals and authorities can ID those who are straw purchasers or not plus an appeals process. I believe owners should be legally required to report a lost or stolen gun too as it also serves these purposes of assuring guns are owned and possessed by lawful and responsible people and no skulduggery is involved.
        Last edited by O'Sullivan Bere; 01-11-2013, 04:17 PM.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: Sandy Hook shooter wore Nike Zoom KV

          Originally posted by O'Sullivan Bere View Post
          But how about banning guns from non law abiding ones or the insane?
          I am all for banning guns of any kind from criminals and the insane. I am of the opinion that there are already laws on the books for that purpose.

          We don't need more laws, we need better functional background checks and enforcement of existing laws.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: Sandy Hook shooter wore Nike Zoom KV

            Originally posted by CharlesD View Post
            I am all for banning guns of any kind from criminals and the insane. I am of the opinion that there are already laws on the books for that purpose.

            We don't need more laws, we need better functional background checks and enforcement of existing laws.
            That opinion would be both mistaken and/or abysmally enforced along the grounds of the concerns I'm citing. We definitely do need laws plus compliance along the lines I said IMO. Do you oppose the kinds of regulations I mentioned and, if so, why. IMO we cannot perform the tasks properly both you and me it seems support unless such regulations and compliance are implemented.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: Sandy Hook shooter wore Nike Zoom KV

              Originally posted by O'Sullivan Bere View Post
              That opinion would be both mistaken and/or abysmally enforced along the grounds of the concerns I'm citing. We definitely do need laws plus compliance along the lines I said IMO. Do you oppose the kinds of regulations I mentioned and, if so, why. IMO we cannot perform the tasks properly both you and me it seems support unless such regulations and compliance are implemented.
              Compliance yes, new laws no. The ones we have aren't being enforced.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: Sandy Hook shooter wore Nike Zoom KV

                Originally posted by hoosier88 View Post
                Yah, yah, yah - I suppose there is some gallows humor to be had from taking the arms arguments to the extreme.

                Nonetheless - there are 20-some-odd little graves there in Newtown, where I'm sure the loving parents & families & friends & total strangers, for God's sake, do their best to warm the cold soil with their tears.

                Could you please wait a bit - some decent interval - before we recommence the feeding frenzy? Thanks.
                I would say funthea is a tad late to the frenzy, if you get my drift.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: Sandy Hook shooter wore Nike Zoom KV

                  Originally posted by CharlesD View Post
                  Compliance yes, new laws no. The ones we have aren't being enforced.
                  Not so...we lack regulations to get it done, never mind lack of compliance on key things that are on the books. I just don't see how that gets better done without certain regulations, none of which I suggested related to banning types of legal guns.

                  For example, let's take that POS Spengler who shot up the first responders on Lake Ontario over Xmas. What's the first pile of bullshit the scumbag straw purchaser's brother tried to pull once he realised the police were aware of what his sister did? "Oh, they were stolen by him" yadda yadda yadda. Once it was publicised that they knew who bought the guns, it's one of the first things I said to myself and others...watch for a 'I had nothing to do with it they were stolen' excuse by the targets of the investigation.

                  Thankfully the police in this particular case had enough evidence by pure chance and sloppy straw purchasing to foreclose the false story of innocence, but if they lacked that--as they far more often do--that would have been the defence. It's a defence that's hard to rebut absent strokes of luck as present there because there's often no requirement to report a lost or stolen gun and the truth or lie of the matter rests solely with the accused.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: Sandy Hook shooter wore Nike Zoom KV

                    Originally posted by O'Sullivan Bere View Post
                    I just don't see how that gets better done without certain regulations, none of which I suggested related to banning types of legal guns.

                    For example, let's take that POS Spengler who shot up the first responders on Lake Ontario over Xmas. What's the first pile of bullshit the scumbag straw purchaser's brother try to pull once he realised the police were aware of what his sister did? "Oh, they were stolen by him" yadda yadda yadda. Once it was publicised that a straw purchaser was involved, it's one of the first things I said to myself and others...watch for a 'I had nothing to do with it they were stolen' excuse. Thankfully the police in this particular case had enough evidence by pure chance and sloppy straw purchasing to know it was what it was, but if they lacked that, as they far more often do, that would have been the defence. It's a defence that's hard to rebut because there's often no requirement to report a lost or stolen gun and the truth or lie of the matter rests solely on the accused.
                    I'll tell you what O'Sullivan, when the existing gun laws start to be enforced such that we see a difference in gun violence, I will get back to you one what other reasonable gun laws could be considered, but there is no way I will ever back a ban on firearms because they look scary like combat weapons. Nor will I ever consider banning semi-automatic rifles, pistols or shot guns. I have already voiced willingness to support smaller magazines which only hold 15 rounds - at least until I get back from a bear hunt in Alaska; then I may consider going down to 10 rounds I believe that to be totally reasonable in view of the fact they are not enforcing gun laws now.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: Sandy Hook shooter wore Nike Zoom KV

                      The Sandy Hook shooter got the guns from his mother who got them quite legally. How would any new laws rectify this situation? This is not a gun problem, it is a moral problem and a cultural problem.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: Sandy Hook shooter wore Nike Zoom KV

                        Originally posted by CharlesD View Post
                        I'll tell you what O'Sullivan, when the existing gun laws start to be enforced such that we see a difference in gun violence, I will get back to you one what other reasonable gun laws could be considered, but there is no way I will ever back a ban on firearms because they look scary like combat weapons. Nor will I ever consider banning semi-automatic rifles, pistols or shot guns. I have already voiced willingness to support smaller magazines which only hold 15 rounds - at least until I get back from a bear hunt in Alaska; then I may consider going down to 10 rounds I believe that to be totally reasonable in view of the fact they are not enforcing gun laws now.
                        I own semiauto handguns, so I'm on the same page as you. There are common sense reasons for that that people don't even raise with the typical 'shoot the bad guy' responses in this national debate.

                        In fact, the true gun grabbers are using all the crazies and extremists and giving them a microphone. It's also an issue that I think responsible gun owners like myself and others ought to get quick control over...we've let too many people get into high places of the NRA or talk radio, etc, who are Kool Aid drinkers and 'gun nuts' etc. That's going to haunt the gun owner community unless we clean house of the crazies who make a 'good case' to the fence sitters that guns themselves need to be taken away because only scary cranks want them, e.g., Larry Pratt, Alex Jones, etc.

                        For example, I not only want a semiauto handgun for self-defence because I might need a few quick shots--but not a large capacity magazine for it that wouldn't be feasible/pragmatic anyway--but also for hunting. Ever go camping or hunting, etc, and get chased by a wild pig? Or bear? Or coyote? Or any rabid animal? Trip by a snake or live near a swamp with gators? Have some irresponsible asshole's junkyard dog threaten or actually go after you? Lots of us live and/or frequent rural areas where such things are common. Most dangerous animals move much quicker than we do and can gut the living shit out of you unless you're able to surely and swiftly take them out. If you have to manually work your chamber, you're fucked unless you hit a fast moving zig zagging enclosing target (and hard to do on just one shot) because split seconds matter.

                        We're not hearing these kinds of arguments out there. What we are hearing are extremes debating extremes and getting shitty information and talking points disseminated.

                        Yes, if we enforced the laws we have, it would reduce the incidents. But there are IMO common sense gun laws not in place that we should put in place that would reduce it much further, and I'm all for that. It doesn't come at the expense of law abiding owners that ought IMO be supportive of a mission of responsible and lawful gun ownership.
                        Last edited by O'Sullivan Bere; 01-12-2013, 06:30 AM.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: Sandy Hook shooter wore Nike Zoom KV

                          Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                          The Sandy Hook shooter got the guns from his mother who got them quite legally. How would any new laws rectify this situation? This is not a gun problem, it is a moral problem and a cultural problem.
                          No doubt those other issues are part of the equation too. And even if we focused on that too, it's impossible to eradicate crimes committed with guns anymore than vehicle codes stop all DUIs, fleeing and eludings, running stop signs, driving at reckless speeds, etc. But we are safer--just not perfectly safe and hence why alert and defensive driving is wise--because of vehicle codes with enforcement. They do work to help reduce--not cure--the risks of dangerous driving choices and reducing the presence of dangerous contemptuous drivers from the roads.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: Sandy Hook shooter wore Nike Zoom KV

                            Originally posted by O'Sullivan Bere View Post
                            No doubt those other issues are part of the equation too. And even if we focused on that too, it's impossible to eradicate crimes committed with guns anymore than vehicle codes stop all DUIs, fleeing and eludings, running stop signs, driving at reckless speeds, etc. But we are safer--just not perfectly safe and hence why alert and defensive driving is wise--because of vehicle codes with enforcement. They do work to help reduce--not cure--the risks of dangerous driving choices and reducing the presence of dangerous contemptuous drivers from the roads.
                            Do you believe we will be more safe if we make it harder for good people to get guns?

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: Sandy Hook shooter wore Nike Zoom KV

                              Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                              Do you believe we will be more safe if we make it harder for good people to get guns?
                              Depends on what you mean by 'harder.' I don't find it particularly 'burdensome' that I have a licenced gun dealer run a background check on me. For example, I even had that done on me when purchasing a Kahr CW .40 at a regional gun show with fellow poster CYDdharta as he can attest. As he would further attest, we even laughed because the dealer verified that I was a US citizen given I, as required, also listed my Irish background and citizenship. In short, he made sure I was a lawful purchaser, and I approved of what he was doing. I got my gun at the show...no real hassle or burden at all.

                              I wouldn't have had any problem if that background check also ran me for other bands like being on a terrorist list (what if I was an IRA dissident or other such person intending to illegally ship that gun overseas for that purpose) or being mentally ill. I had a college acquaintance who deteriorated with schizophrenia purchase a handgun back in college and she shot her father's best friend with it. She was able to buy it despite having actually been picked up by the FBI for appearing at a function where POTUS Bush 41 was speaking because she wanted to tell him to stop threatening her. She believed the POTUS was having the FBI talk to her through her TV threatening her. Now, why wasn't she flagged for gun purchases?

                              If I'm buying lots of weapons suspiciously, I don't see it as any legitimate burden on me to explain if investigators inquire or even that I make the guns available for inspection to assure I'm a lawful owner and possessor of them as I claim to be. If you're not a straw purchaser, the odds and certainly expectation is that I should be in possession of those guns.

                              I also don't see it as any burden whatsoever to report a lost or stolen gun. In fact, I want the police to know it happened for crime prosecution and crime prevention purposes. Why someone wouldn't report that is actually concerning. Would you report your car stolen if it was? Why not the gun given what it is? Often times, it's because it isn't really lost or stolen, but that will be the fictitious excuse once the unauthorised person they gave it to gets caught with the gun and/or it's used or found at a crime scene.

                              I don't think it's an undue burden if I'm transferring any weapon to another person to report I did so and that they were clean due to a background check. That doesn't even have to do with my right to possess a weapon. In fact I'm divesting myself of that weapon. What's of concern is that the other person is seeking to invest themselves of that gun, and it's key that they actually have the right to do so. I have no legal right or ethical interest whatsoever for transferring a weapon to an unauthorised person anymore than a licenced dealer does. The government should also know that the transaction happened so they know who has what guns and when for compliance and investigative purposes. Oh, and if you seem to have a 'bad habit' of habitually 'losing your guns or having them stolen' to skirt around on that regulation, that's also something that should possibly lead to a gun ban because either you're likely straw purchasing and lying about it or alternatively so bloody reckless with controlling your firearms that you're unfit anyway (and probably lying about it anyway).
                              Last edited by O'Sullivan Bere; 01-11-2013, 05:51 PM.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X