# President's "plan" - Read it for yourself



## Watcher (Dec 31, 2008)

15 pages long.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

All I see is a smoke....what are you're thoughts on this Watcher?


----------



## Watcher (Dec 31, 2008)

I usually like to read something and give my slow old brain a day to chew it over. However, what I see is a 4 point plan.

Two have specifics: increasing the burden on background checks and buying guns; and banning high capactiy magazines and the all mysterious "assalt weapon" (whatever exactly this thing is).
Titles:
1. Closing background check loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands.
2. Banning military-sytle assalult wepons and high-capacity magazines, and taking other common-sense steps to reduce gun violence.

(editorial: gotta love the term: _and taking other common-sense steps to reduce gun violence._)

The other two points are a lot more feel-good, pie in the sky, new programs expensive to implement and support (i.e.: taxes), difficult to effectively manage, and IMHO open up a can of worms regarding other aspects of our civil rights:
Titles:
3. Making schools safer.
4. Increasing access to mental health services.

I bet the Whitehouse would be willing to compromise: They'd give up 3 and 4 if they could get 1 and 2.

Hey - everyone would be a winner! :roll:

There are a lot of folks a lot smarter than me who can really figure out what's going on.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

That's a lot of stuff Watcher, thanks for posting. 

I'm sure, after everyone carefully reads the document, there will be much civil and enlightning debate here.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Hey Goob,
What do you want to bet that we....the politically active and opinionated bunch here at UWN can surpass the 15 pages submitted by the president right here on these very pages. Wagers anyone?? While I agree with your last post, I question the use of the words carefully, civil, and enlightening. Everyone, much and debate, however, are highly likely.-------SS


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm all for better enforcement of the existing laws, so I'll give a big YUP to #1. Toss the bear a fish.

And having had a long history with mental health issues, I absolutely support #4. Some may think we're talking about bums, junkies, alchies and derelicts, but the truth is more like veterans, relatives, kids and neighbors who deserve better. Hell, you or me could join their ranks any day. It ain't right that a vet risks his right to arms just by asking for some help. Toss the bear another fish.

#2 is smoke up the derriere.

But #3 just pisses me off. Schools ARE safe. There's over 300,000 public schools in this country. In proper perspective, your kid is more likely to get hit by a car, bit by a dog, struck by lightning or suffer a serious medical situation than he or she is to even be exposed to a gun, let alone be threatened by gun violence at school. And truth be told, a lot of kids in school are a **** sight safer with me than they are at home. That's not because I'm packing, but because I have a functioning brain and therefore, the upper hand. 26 years and not a single child injured by anybody while in my charge - and I'm not exceptional by any stretch of the imagination.

Of course, that means that if you bring a gun into my school, you're going to eat tile. No, I'm not a tough guy - I'm just a wrestling coach who knows some illegal moves and who doesn't give a gawddam about your rights. Gun free zone? **** straight. You got a gun around my kids - you're a bad guy.

Did I mention that a couple of my wrestlers took state championships? And slap that **** bear!


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Finn....I feel sorry for the guy that even thinks about going where you teach... :OX/:

The ban of assault weapons really trouble's me. Define 'assault rifle'. I don't think they really can, anyway, I'm afraid the Pres is holding out with more details about this. And Fienstein's theories have not been heard yet, it scares the hell out of me.

Shut-up Goob ! Wamart Lover...


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> Hey Goob,
> What do you want to bet that we....the politically active and opinionated bunch here at UWN can surpass the 15 pages submitted by the president right here on these very pages. Wagers anyone?? While I agree with your last post, I question the use of the words carefully, civil, and enlightening. Everyone, much and debate, however, are highly likely.-------SS


 

I hear *Goob* is willing to wager a cured ham.. :O•-:


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

sawsman said:


> I hear Goob is willing to wager a cured ham.. :O•-:


I heard that too, or is it a pumpkin pie? _/O

I've only read the Foxnews, condensed, 23 point plan, but I have to admit that it was far less worrisome than I thought it might be and a lot of it I could support, at the risk of being called a liberal, commie, wacko, de-muh-crat by some of the angry mob here. A couple of comments.

1.


.45 said:


> Define 'assault rifle'. I don't think they really can, anyway,


I agree that this is the hardest part of what is proposed and I'm with .45, I don't know that they can. It seems that the prez is trying for a 10 round magazine as his definition. I see this point as where the greatest battle will be fought.

2.


Finnegan said:


> And having had a long history with mental health issues, I absolutely support #4. Some may think we're talking about bums, junkies, alchies and derelicts, but the truth is more like veterans, relatives, kids and neighbors who deserve better. Hell, you or me could join their ranks any day. It ain't right that a vet risks his right to arms just by asking for some help. Toss the bear another fish.


+1000000! As I and others have said before, the *only* way we are going to prevent Sandy Hook type incidents is to improve the country's mental health care. Nothing else really gets to the heart of the problem and in the US, we too frequently fall short in helping our citizens with mental health issues. I do forsee some conflicts with existing healthcare privacy regulations. Hopefully, these can be worked out.

3.


Finnegan said:


> your kid is more likely to get hit by a car, bit by a dog, struck by lightning or suffer a serious medical situation than he or she is to even be exposed to a gun, let alone be threatened by gun violence at school.


I agree, but it is interesting that both the "left" and the "right" are jumping on this. I wonder if it isn't just a emotional overreaction to the recent incident, and the fervor to turn our schools into armed compounds will wane when the politicos have to figure out how to pay for it?

4. I will admit that while the plan doesn't seem too bad right now, the devil is in the details. Time will tell with what we ultimately get.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> Hey Goob,
> What do you want to bet that we....the politically active and opinionated bunch here at UWN can surpass the 15 pages submitted by the president right here on these very pages. Wagers anyone?? While I agree with your last post, I question the use of the words carefully, civil, and enlightening. Everyone, much and debate, however, are highly likely.-------SS


Ah, ha, ha, ha. I'm not taking that bet.

More later, I haven't read the entire document like you fellas have.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> I agree, but it is interesting that both the "left" and the "right" are jumping on this. I wonder if it isn't just a emotional overreaction to the recent incident, and the fervor to turn our schools into armed compounds will wane when the politicos have to figure out how to pay for it?


It's useful, that's why it looks like it does, coming from both sides. Incidences like this are fresh meat to politicians. Drooling all the way to the polls. On the back end, political parties and individuals looking for control to benefit constituents who stand to gain money and more power.


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

Catherder said:


> Time will tell with what we ultimately get.


If you have an interest in the outcome now is the time to make your voice heard. If you don't make your voice heard then you will get whatever the noisy people want.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Man there's about 2 dozen talking points in this document. One could easily break this up into 4 separate threads.

The way I read it *everyone*, even those of us that have a CC, will have to have a background check to purchase a firearm. Wyoming's CC permits get renewed (everyone gets a new background check) every 6 years.

Uh....looking at some of my friends that have a Wyoming CC, I could live with the rule being shortened to say 3 years, but every purchased is a little extreme.


----------



## Watcher (Dec 31, 2008)

I really think every comment is thoughtful and on target.

So I alluded to other civil rights issues. Let me try to present one issue. What level of "mental illness" is going to preclude me from buying a hunting rifle?

Having submitted an insurance claim for counciling?

Having filled a prescription for an anti-depressant?

Having been laid off from a job?

Having been expelled from school?

Being involved in a nasty divorce?

Seems to be a really slippery slope around a really soft science.

Sorry, I'm home drinking whisky again. 

Oh - is that a reason not to approve me to buy a gun?


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

wyogoob said:
 

> Man there's about 2 dozen talking points in this document. One could easily break this up into 4 separate threads.
> 
> The way I read it *everyone*, even those of us that have a CC, will have to have a background check to purchase a firearm. Wyoming's CC permits get renewed (everyone gets a new background check) every 5 years.
> 
> Uh....looking at some of my friends that have a Wyoming CC, I could live with the rule being shortened to say 3 years, but every purchased is a little extreme.


In Utah, the validity of your CFP is verified by the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification for each purchase in addition to the Federal background check. The state runs a background check on those who don't have a CFP. The assumption is that your CFP is revoked if you commit a crime that would disallow firearm ownership.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

wyogoob said:


> The way I read it *everyone*, even those of us that have a CC, will have to have a background check to purchase a firearm. Wyoming's CC permits get renewed (everyone gets a new background check) every 6 years.


I bought that 300wsm just last week with my ccw and the dealer still had to call BCI, is that not the same as a background check (I realize that it is just to call the state; is that just to check that the ccw was not revoked??)? Utah's also last for 5 years.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Cooky said:


> wyogoob said:
> 
> 
> > Man there's about 2 dozen talking points in this document. One could easily break this up into 4 separate threads.
> ...


So are these checks after you make the purchase, take the gun home? That's no good, old .45 would have me taken out by then. 

In Wyoming I just show the FFL guy my CC card and do the paperwork and off I go. Guys that don't have CC have to wait, maybe overnight, to get approval, have the background checks performed..or more stuff, I can't remember, been a long time. Do they still have a 48-hour waiting period to buy a gun at a store or is that something I endured in another state?


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> wyogoob said:
> 
> 
> > The way I read it *everyone*, even those of us that have a CC, will have to have a background check to purchase a firearm. Wyoming's CC permits get renewed (everyone gets a new background check) every 6 years.
> ...


Did you have to wait while they made the call?

I don't see any calls going on when I get a firearm. It doesn't take much longer than buying a black rifle out of someone's trunk in the Walmart parking lot.

Course, they just take one look at me and say "hey, yer good to go".


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

wyogoob said:


> Cooky said:
> 
> 
> > wyogoob said:
> ...


The checks are all completed before you get to take possession of the gun. Waiting periods are still in effect in some places. Many states, counties and cities have their own firearms laws in addition to federal law.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> wyogoob said:
> 
> 
> > The way I read it *everyone*, even those of us that have a CC, will have to have a background check to purchase a firearm. Wyoming's CC permits get renewed (everyone gets a new background check) every 6 years.
> ...


A CFP BCI check is simply checking that the CFP is currently valid.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

wyogoob said:


> Huge29 said:
> 
> 
> > wyogoob said:
> ...


Yes, I had to wait while the phone call was made; he said the 8 minute wait to get through was the shortest he had had in months. That was after filling out the two pages of forms; after having waited for the license taking about a month.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

In Utah, background checks are done weekly (yes, I said weekly) for everyone with a CFP. If you have been arrested (not convicted in a court of law which can take years) your CFP will either be suspended or revoked within a week. BCI will then tell the dealer that your permit is not valid when they call to verify.


----------



## Watcher (Dec 31, 2008)

Personally I think your missing the point on background checks. We currently have them on any gun purchased from a licenced dealer. In Utah the concealed carry just saves the dealer a step. I don't necessarily see this process changing.

What I think you're missing is what criteria may be used to pass or fail the background check. I keep coming back to what level of "mental health" may "potentially lead to violent behavior to yourself or others (does sharing with your councilor thoughts of sucide become a trigger they they will be required to report) which in turn will be an immediate disqualifiction to legally purchase a fire arm? But there are others. What personal history of civil disobediance will pre-clude you because it demonstrates the "potential" for anti-social and dangerous behavior. What medical diagnosies/conditions or prescription drug may be on the list as "potentially" causing or leading to violent behavior to yourself and others. What if I have a bad experience with a given law-enforcement officer, lawyer, doctor, Government empoyee, or some other professional who has the authority to "red-flag" me.

The issue is not the background check, it's the potential changes to the depth of checking and the criteria for denial. Mental health and human behavior are so difficult to accurately characterize and they are connected to the hip of other civil rights issues. The tenor is to move to error on the side of precaution and safety? Maybe it should. I always say I'm not smart enough to understand all the angles.

Finally, don't get me wrong. My personal opinion is that too many of the wrong people have guns. I personally don't own an AR type rifle. I have no need for 15 capacity clips. And if they made buying handguns more difficult that wouldn't significantly impact me. If anything, I'm probably on the left side of this debate - not being staunchly against more control.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The most interesting thing to me was on page 3 - when making the case for better background checks, the report notes that of the inmates surveyed, only 12 percent obtained their guns from a retail store or pawn shop that should have completed a background check. Which means that 88 percent of inmates get their guns with another method where a background check isn't required (theft, straw purchase, private sale, etc....)

Duh.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

Of course, that means that if you bring a gun into my school, you're going to eat tile. No, I'm not a tough guy - I'm just a wrestling coach who knows some illegal moves and who doesn't give a gawddam about your rights. Gun free zone? **** straight. You got a gun around my kids - you're a bad guy.

Seriously- I have always been under the opinion that a bullet trumps a takedown


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> Of course, that means that if you bring a gun into my school, you're going to eat tile. No, I'm not a tough guy - I'm just a wrestling coach who knows some illegal moves and who doesn't give a gawddam about your rights. Gun free zone? **** straight. You got a gun around my kids - you're a bad guy.


Thank you for buying into the stereotypes that all of the gun haters would have you believe. I wonder how a police officer that visits your school would react to "eating tile"? Obviously a bad guy, right? after all, he has a gun.


----------



## Watcher (Dec 31, 2008)

Maybe the question to start with is:

*Are there simply just too many guns and are they just too easy to get?*

Loaded question I know but in many ways it seems to be the essence of the dabate. Much of the energy is focused on programs that will make it harder for decent folks to purchase a fire-arm. Broken record - keep guns out of the hands of criminals but now we need to add mentally ill.

*How the heck do we do this?*

:?


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

[attachment=0:qnhdcujz]321366_461856090528399_758640393_n.jpg[/attachment:qnhdcujz]


----------



## Watcher (Dec 31, 2008)

.45,

Perfect! Just about sums it up.

Do I put a laughing face :lol: or a crying face -)O(- on my props?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Watcher said:


> Maybe the question to start with is:
> 
> *Are there simply just too many guns and are they just too easy to get?*
> 
> ...


Of course it's the essence of the debate from your viewpoint! (BTW, that's two questions, not one!) Too many guns? I have 11 because I can't hunt deer, elk, coyotes, ducks, quail, rabbits and moose nor can I teach my grandkids to hunt with the same gun nor can I shoot skeet, trap, long range targets and indoor range targets with that same gun nor can I protect myself and/or others from my home, car, person or public places with that same gun. That's like asking if we have too many tools in our tool boxes!

Are they just too easy to get? For law abiding citizens, no, per the background checks, paperwork and red tape, waiting periods, registeration and concealed weapons permits. For law breakers, it doesn't matter since they don't/won't do what law abiding citizens do to get them.

What the heck do we do to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? In Utah, first we inforce Utah Code 76-10-503 which already prohibits felons, indicted felons, probationed and paroled felons, users of a controlled substance, those found not guilty by reason of insanity, those found mentally incompete to stand trial, anyone who's been commited to a mental institution, illegal aliens, dishonorably discharged servicemen and anyone who's renounced US citizenship from owning/using firearms, archery tackle or any other dangerous weapon. Second, we could possibly add others to that list and third, we could require the state to set up facilities at gun shows to do background checks. But, again, only the law abiding citizens would comply, thus nothing would change.

How about debating how we better protect ourselves from those criminals and mentally ill who are going to get those guns regardless of the laws we pass? More secure buildings, more armed and trained personnel, more security procedures and better mental health care will do much more to prevent these tragedies than infringing on the God given rights of law abiding citizens!


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Loke said:


> Finnegan said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, that means that if you bring a gun into my school, you're going to eat tile. No, I'm not a tough guy - I'm just a wrestling coach who knows some illegal moves and who doesn't give a gawddam about your rights. Gun free zone? **** straight. You got a gun around my kids - you're a bad guy.
> ...


C'mon now, don't be silly.

I've been surprised to learn from all this hoopla that other schools don't have cops. My school has had a cop for over a decade and my school district has its own police department. I really appreciate having some legal authority around, not because they're packing, but because they deal with the dope, gangs, assaults and other criminal behavior so that I don't have to deal with it.

Entirely to the credit of our on-site officers, teachers and cops make a **** good team. And you can bet we've talked about this issue a lot in the past weeks.

Utah did away with gun free zones in 2011. That created a HUGE problem for us. Not a single person on this planet believes gun free zones control guns. The point of a gun free zone is to afford cops the ability to detain or arrest people with dubious intent. As it is right now, if the Sureños want to sit outside my school, armed to the teeth, there isn't a **** thing our officers can do about it.

So screw your politics. I serve my kids and their parents, not the NRA. When those parents tell me that my attitude about guns needs some adjustment, I'll reconsider. Until then, anybody with a gun is a threat. And the cops I work with absolutely and unequivocally support this attitude.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

> Of course, that means that if you bring a gun into my school, you're going to eat tile





> I have to work in different schools at all levels and I have my gun on my hip at all times, if you did this to me and survived you would be facing assault charges, can you keep your job with a felony?


You seriously need to talk to your school district law dogs. I can and am expected to employ "whatever actions necessary" in defense of my kids. Bring your gun, janitor. I see the print, you kiss tile. See you in court.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Finnegan said:


> I've been surprised to learn from all this hoopla that other schools don't have cops. My school has had a cop for over a decade and my school district has its own police department.


My sister graduated from the local High School in 1979, they had a cop in site there even back then. I'm really surprised to hear other schools HAVENT had cops from then till now.

-DallanC


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

The plan sounds okay to me. Except, as I've said before, I'd reclassify those weapons instead of banning them. In order to qualify for a Class 3 permit, you would need to prove you have the capability to provide secure storage for both the guns and separate storage for ammo. That would be in addition to stringent background checks, etc.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> Utah did away with gun free zones in 2011. That created a HUGE problem for us. Not a single person on this planet believes gun free zones control guns. The point of a gun free zone is to afford cops the ability to detain or arrest people with dubious intent. As it is right now, if the Sureños want to sit outside my school, armed to the teeth, there isn't a **** thing our officers can do about it.


Utah did not do away with gun free zones. They made an exception to them for qualified persons. Those with concealed firearm permits. I will guarantee that your Sureños do not have permits. that would mean that they are in violation of Utah Code 76 10 505.


> Title 76 Chapter 10 Section 505.5
> 
> << Previous Section (76-10-505)	Next Section (76-10-506) >>
> Title 76
> ...


So there is a **** thing your local law enforcement can do about it if they would bother to understand the law.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

> Utah did away with gun free zones in 2011. That created a HUGE problem for us. Not a single person on this planet believes gun free zones control guns. The point of a gun free zone is to afford cops the ability to detain or arrest people with dubious intent. As it is right now, if the Sureños want to sit outside my school, armed to the teeth, there isn't a **** thing our officers can do about it.


If your cops can't find a way to legally harrass a bunch of gangbangers with guns near your campus, they are not worth their salt. Frankly, I don't believe this for a second, because most cops spend alot more time figuring out how to operate around the law than they do sitting idley by and using the law as an excuse for inaction.

Second, If you lump in all concealed carry citizens with a bunch of criminals, you are just as much a part of the problem as the criminals.

The one point that I semi-agree with is your taking action if you SEE a gun at the school. In my opinion, school zones should be concealed carry only. Open carry at a school is uncalled for. As far as your eating tile comment, I will pass that off as machismo, but realize that the law allows force up to deadly for attacking someone with intent to do harm. Having a wrestling match with someone who isn't a willing accomplice could possibley have a negative impact on your life in many different ways.

Hopefully, some of your comments just represent a little careless speak on the web; surely you are a little more grounded and rational when dealing with the kids.-----SS


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

paddler213 said:


> The plan sounds okay to me. Except, as I've said before, I'd reclassify those weapons instead of banning them. In order to qualify for a Class 3 permit, you would need to prove you have the capability to provide secure storage for both the guns and separate storage for ammo. That would be in addition to stringent background checks, etc.


Thank goodness there are still enough proponants of freedom and liberty that neither yours, nor the presidents plan have a snowballs chance. You can't even get the likes of Harry Reid to buy into these ideas. If they do manage to get a ban through congress, the democrats will once again lose out in 2016 and the repubs will enjoy controll of congress. Then, we will only have to wait until we get another level headed president to do away with the junk legisation just like we have done before. Funny how no one can ever get any good traction regarding gun control. Maybe Americans are just not ready to live in captivity like the rest of the world.

I myself am leaning toward total state control of these issues. If the population of a state wants to willingly give up freedom by election, I say let them do it. Those who want to enjoy the freedoms of this country can move to areas more aligned with their desires. I love the campaign of Texas to attract the conservative population from New York to move to their state bringing their talents and fortunes with them.------SS


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

Watcher said:


> Personally I think your missing the point on background checks. We currently have them on any gun purchased from a licenced dealer. In Utah the concealed carry just saves the dealer a step. I don't necessarily see this process changing.
> 
> What I think you're missing is what criteria may be used to pass or fail the background check. I keep coming back to what level of "mental health" may "potentially lead to violent behavior to yourself or others (does sharing with your councilor thoughts of sucide become a trigger they they will be required to report) which in turn will be an immediate disqualifiction to legally purchase a fire arm? But there are others. What personal history of civil disobediance will pre-clude you because it demonstrates the "potential" for anti-social and dangerous behavior. What medical diagnosies/conditions or prescription drug may be on the list as "potentially" causing or leading to violent behavior to yourself and others. What if I have a bad experience with a given law-enforcement officer, lawyer, doctor, Government empoyee, or some other professional who has the authority to "red-flag" me.
> 
> ...


I just saw a Chantix® commercial on TV (stop smoking medicine). The possible side effects would undoubtedly make you ineligible for firearms ownership. Actually, just quitting smoking might. You probably wouldn't be allowed to stop drinking coffee either.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Tomorrow Dianne Feintein will introduce her 'gun control' bill. Already it's looking pretty nasty to me.

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_22 ... source=rss

We as gun owners really need to get our voice's heard.....join the NRA, write or email your congressmen, your clergy, anybody and everybody! Let them know exactly how you feel about this. Again and always, it's really not all about guns, but the damnation of our 2nd along with the total control over guns and gun owners that Feinstein thinks she deserves.

This bill *will *affect each and every one of us who owns any type of firearm, and will affect the people that rely on our protection. Our parents, neighbors, children, spouses, etc. etc.

Don't wait !!

mol?n labé


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

*Re: President's "plan" - Read it for yourself*



.45 said:


> Tomorrow Dianne Feintein will introduce her 'gun control' bill. Already it's looking pretty nasty to me.
> 
> http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_22 ... source=rss
> 
> ...


Agreed! Diane Frankenstein is a very scary broad. Her politics suck too.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Ms. Frankenstein just inspired me to invest $70 at a certain nra.org.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I didn't read all 5 pages of this because I can imagine what it says...so, if someone already said this I apologize.

I get irritated with these kind of knee-jerk reactions by politicians because they always fail to examine or try to look at the underlying issue--which, in this case, is what is pushing these whackos to such extreme measures? Why are these crazy sob's getting the desire to go somewhere and shoot people?

Personally, I believe that if the Pres or any other politician really wanted to put the brakes on gun violence, they would start by clamping down on Hollywood, the video game industry,and pop-culture in general. In my opinion, there is more crazy gun-toting whackos out there because we are breeding them with the stuff we allow kids to read, watch, play, and listen too. But, of course, all those Hollywood stars that support gun regulation would never come out and support stricter control of what hollywood pumps out on the big screen...seems hypocritical to me!

Also, I don't believe guns have any place in the school...shouldn't be allowed at all whether by permit or not. I believe that if you start allowing teachers the right to tote concealed weapons to school, you are going to see more gun violence in the schools. I also know that if some kid brings a gun to my school and starts shooting, if he comes to my room he better get to me before the baseball bat I carry in my room gets to him!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

To each their own opinion but I never seem to hear of too many law enforcement agencies and court houses being ran rampant by gun wielding thugs intent on killing people. You would think that they would be a highly targeted sector of our society. Why would they not fall victim to the same type of crimes that are committed within our schools?

I think the answer is pretty obvious.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

*Personally, I believe that if the Pres or any other politician really wanted to put the brakes on gun violence, they would start by clamping down on Hollywood, the video game industry,and pop-culture in general. In my opinion, there is more crazy gun-toting whackos out there because we are breeding them with the stuff we allow kids to read, watch, play, and listen too. But, of course, all those Hollywood stars that support gun-violence would never come out and support stricter control of what hollywood pumps out on the big screen...seems hypocritical to me!*

Is that support to modify the 1st Amendment?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Let me put it this way....we try to restrict as much pornography from our kids as possible. Why don't we do the same for violence? Our popular culture is really good at desensitizing people....the massacres we are seeing across the nation, in my opinion, are a direct result of that desensitization.

Also, I believe that one of the reasons we don't see massacres at police stations and at courthouses is because they are generally not filled with people. The people who are committing these crimes are not really targeting specific people...they are targeting masses of people.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Let me put it this way....we try to restrict as much pornography from our kids as possible. Why don't we do the same for violence? Our popular culture is really good at desensitizing people....the massacres we are seeing across the nation, in my opinion, are a direct result of that desensitization.
> 
> Also, I believe that one of the reasons we don't see massacres at police stations and at courthouses is because they are generally not filled with people.* The people who are committing these crimes are not really targeting specific people...they are targeting masses of people*.


And un-armed people.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

.45 said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > Let me put it this way....we try to restrict as much pornography from our kids as possible. Why don't we do the same for violence? Our popular culture is really good at desensitizing people....the massacres we are seeing across the nation, in my opinion, are a direct result of that desensitization.
> ...


Exactly, gun-free zones where they know they will have little resistance.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Exactly. If it were were just about targeting the masses one might go to gun a show.......


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Sorry, I don't buy into this idea that if we put more guns into schools we will have less violence. Look at this way, little Johnny is hell-bent on murder and he wants to kill a lot of people. He knows that the high school is going to have a big assembly on Monday, but the school has armed guards and teachers...so what does he do, he goes online and learns how to build a bomb. He then builds the bomb and places in the auditorium on Friday during the school's practice for the upcoming play and when there are no armed guards or security at the school and no metal detectors and puts the bomb on countdown until its planned detonation during the assembly.

The problem isn't that the school doesn't have a bunch of guns to protect everybody. The problem is that little Johnny wants to kill. The measures that should be taken to avoid Johnny killing isn't armed protection but the answer to the question, "Why is Johnny wanting to kill?" You start to fix that problem, and it won't matter how many guns are out there and who has them.

On the flip side, I can see the scenario happening where Mr. Gunsmart who has his concealed weapon comes to school on Friday night without knowing that the drama club is preparing for its play. And, because he doesn't know that the play is being practiced, stumbles upon two students preparing for a scene where a gun is wielded and fired. Not knowing, though, that these students are pretending, Mr. Gunsmart blows some poor kid away....


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Exactly. If it were were just about targeting the masses one might go to gun a show.......


....or a movie theater, or a mall, or a McDonald's. Also, mass killings and murders don't always occur by guns. What about OKC? Would it have mattered how many of those people had guns? Didn't that occur in a federal building? Did you know that Mcveigh was ultimately arrested on gun charges?

I am all for gun rights, but having one doesn't necessarily make you safer...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I never seem to hear of too many law enforcement agencies and court houses being ran rampant by gun wielding thugs intent on killing people.


Do a quick google search on courthouse shootings....it seems like there are lots and lots of 'em!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Mr Muleskinner said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. If it were were just about targeting the masses one might go to gun a show.......
> ...


And not having one does?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Muleskinner said:
> ...


Yeah...In some cases it does. If I am in school and a kid knows I carry and that kid wants to kill a lot of people, who do you think his first target is going to be? In real life situations this has also played out time and again...

Also, I am pretty sure I was just given data at my school that showed that homes with guns are more likely to see gun violence including murder and suicide than homes that don't have guns. Why would schools be any different?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

hmmm.....what if several administrators are packing heat? Not just one? Who would be the first target then? Could be that the first target also becomes the last target? Would it matter if people were armed in a McDonalds or a Theater? If I were there and were carrying I would promise that I would have an effect on the outcome. If there are a few brave souls that are willing to defend those that are unable to defend themselves I would bet money that these creeps would think twice. We have already determined that by and large they are not looking for a gunfight. They are wanting to position themselves to kill many people. It would stand to reason that those that are wanting inflict the most harm would not want to walk into a place of armed people. A police station comes to mind.

The argument about the home murder suicides are a different animal altogether. Those that specialize in the field are quick to point out that so called "crimes of passion" have a character completely their own and more often then not they are a single murder and suicide.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

This is how it ought to be....

http://news.yahoo.com/fontana-calif-sch ... 34771.html


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

.45 said:


> This is how it ought to be....
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/fontana-calif-sch ... 34771.html


Ironic though that an ordinary citizen in the State of Kalifornia cannot legally own those rifles.

And that Sen Feinstein hails from there.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> .45 said:
> 
> 
> > This is how it ought to be....
> ...


Right in her own backyard !! *(())*


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I am all for gun rights, but having one doesn't necessarily make you safer...


Please explain to me how not having one does. Then we could pass your wisdom along to our police and military.

The purpose of having a gun is not necessarily safety. It is freedom. I would rather die a free man than live a safe slave.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

I made a mistake....Sen. Feinstein will actually introduce her 'gun control' bill to-day...so much for the 2nd. :?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/fein ... itics.html


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Here is her list.....not included is all the other weird stuff she has in store for 'all' of us. A few shotguns, a bunch of AR's, handguns. I hope they throw her out of the hearings.

http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploa ... 805173.jpg


----------



## rukus (Apr 11, 2008)

My thoughts:

I think that it is natural for us to want to take some type of action in hopes that it will help to prevent horrible tragedies from occurring. In this case it is legislative and I don't blame anyone for wanting to do that, I think it is our human nature to want to make things better and safer. But as I sit back and let myself really think about all of these proposals and what they mean, I always come back to a re-occurring thought. "Bad things are always going to happen. If a person intends to cause harm, then he is going to find a way to accomplish that regardless of the laws, regulations, rules, social norms, etc.". I think we are fooling ourselves if we think proposing more legislation is going to help curb this kind of violence because I firmly believe that it won't.

Bad people will do bad things, which is why I think one of the most effective things we can do is make sure we are in a position to protect ourselves and those we care about. I would never support a legislation that required everyone to possess a firearm, and I surely don't want legislation that would prevent someone from this possession either. I'm no historian, but I don't feel the 2nd amendment was put in place so I could go skeet shooting on the weekends, or go shoot a deer in the fall. It's purpose is to allow citizens to defend themselves from either country or neighbor/foe and I won't support any law that will infringe on that opportunity.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

If you wanted to kill alot of people, hi-jack a semi-truck filled with gasoline and crash it into a school during an assembly... much easier than shooting up a school and the body count would be insane.

Lets solve the mental issue that causes someone to act out like this in such hideous ways, rather than the tools they use.


-DallanC


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Crash it into the Energy Solutions Arena. Now we're talking body count.


----------



## Dannyboy (Oct 27, 2010)

We were talking about gun law and the reason for them. I am not sure why people keep bringing up bombs. Completely different subject. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight..... don't bring a gun to a bomb fight.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Dannyboy said:


> We were talking about gun law and the reason for them. I am not sure why people keep bringing up bombs. Completely different subject. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight..... don't bring a gun to a bomb fight.


I brought up bombs because of the idea that some people have that if we put more guns in schools, kids will be safer. My point was that bad people will find a way to do bad things....if these bad people want to do bad things at a school, more guns aren't going to stop them. Instead of showing up to the gun fight with a gun, they will turn the gun fight into a bomb fight.

The solution is to figure out why people are going "bad" and then come up with ways to stop them from going "bad".


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> I brought up bombs because of the idea that some people have that if we put more guns in schools, kids will be safer. My point was that bad people will find a way to do bad things....if these bad people want to do bad things at a school, more guns aren't going to stop them. Instead of showing up to the gun fight with a gun, they will turn the gun fight into a bomb fight.
> 
> The solution is to figure out why people are going "bad" and then come up with ways to stop them from going "bad".


*THIS* !!! Its not about freaking gun control, gun control only affects the law abiding people. We need to address what is causing 10 year olds to go murder their familys, or shoot up schools or theatres.

Texas:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01 ... ister?lite

and New Mexico:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/21/te ... cials-say/

Its irrelevant they used a gun, what makes a 10 year old so determined to take life, life of his parents and siblings? It aint about gun control folks.

-DallanC


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> The solution is to figure out why people are going "bad" and then come up with ways to stop them from going "bad".


And when you know they're 'bad', put them where they can't do any more 'bad' things.

The dimwit who shot up the theater in Colorado doesn't need a trial and several million dollars worth of psychoanalysis, followed by decades of requests for parole and leniency. He needs to be expunged. Remove him and all traces of him from the world.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Fishrmn said:


> And when you know they're 'bad', put them where they can't do any more 'bad' things.
> 
> The dimwit who shot up the theater in Colorado doesn't need a trial and several million dollars worth of psychoanalysis, followed by decades of requests for parole and leniency. He needs to be expunged. Remove him and all traces of him from the world.


I like how you think Sir. :mrgreen:

-DallanC


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

DallanC said:


> Fishrmn said:
> 
> 
> > And when you know they're 'bad', put them where they can't do any more 'bad' things.
> ...


I agree except for the "doesn't need a trial" part. In my opinion, the trial is essential, the problem remains in the items following the trial. I'm all for using the death penalty for exactly it's purpose; to remove "unfixable" elements from society. I often wonder why we care so much about why a criminal is unfixable when we just have to come to that conclusion and act accordingly.--------SS


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I am beginning to think that the assault on guns is just a diversion to the real problem that has been created by a progressive society beginning in the 1960's. I think that we can thank the war on morality, family, personal responsibility, and freedom for creating the condition where heinous atrocities are becoming the norm. You can't have it both ways. The progressive movement in this country fights every day against the principles that prevent these types of things from happening. Sorry folks, but take away all the guns and the problem of bad people with no morals still remains. It's taken generations to get to where we are and it would take generations to fix the problem if we were to somehow turn things around. -----------SS


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

I just have to wonder what will be accomplished by having a trial in this case. 

We know he did it. Does it matter why?

Okay, let's have a trial. And then let's take him out behind the courthouse and execute him. And if there are any lawyers and other fools who think he can be rehabilitated, let's let them keep him in their homes, with their families. At least while we run through the appeals process. :O•-:


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

You could put "Teachers" where "Parents" are in the pic.

[attachment=0:2ii0eg8t]attachment.jpg[/attachment:2ii0eg8t]


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Along with that same line of thinking bowgy....


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Right on, bowguy. So I repeat, in 25 years of service, not a single kid in my charge has ever been harmed by another. I can't speak about Connecticut...never been there. But I notice that the first to fall in that horrible incident were admins and teachers.

When the idea of arming teachers got hot, back around Xmas, I laughed it off, thinking it was too stupid to bother. Turned out, I was wrong. Many Utah teachers have latched on to the idea, and I've been talking with them about their decision to carry in school.

Guess what? Those few who are packing aren't packing to protect your kids. They're packing to protect themselves from your kids.

Everybody needs to stop yelling in the echo chamber and employ some independent thought, here.

I grew up with guns and own an arsenal. (But I sold every single gun I own recently.  ) I have a CFP and have fired a couple thousand rounds in tactical training. I'm not gun stupid.

So I also understand that my school is brick and concrete. Best game I can bring is a .45 semi-auto. Sure, there's experimental ammo out there. But it hasn't been tested live. So meantime, any shot I miss will ricochet. Did you know that cops, in an actual firefight, miss 40% of the time. That's a fact.

I've got 2 10 round clips. That means when **** hits the fan, I'll likely send 8 rounds just bouncing down the hallways. If that doesn't scare you, remember that a Utah CFP course doesn't even require handling an actual gun, let alone shooting one. I support the existing CFP bull****, but let's not pretend it's something it isn't. I took the additional training because I wanted to. These newly armed teachers haven't had any training at all.

So, y'all willing to bet YOUR kid's safety on me with a gun? The alternative is betting your kid's safety on me with a brain. Thousands of parents have trusted my brain, such as it is. Not one has been disappointed and every kid has arrived home safe.

If you're willing to bet YOUR kids life on a teacher with a gun, you need to go to a parent/teacher conference, meet the people face to face and really think about that. You'll get what I'm talking about.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

While we're posting funny pictures.....check this out. I think we have finally identified the problem. All we have to do is ban Democrats. :mrgreen: ------SS


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

> Finnegan wrote:Right on, bowguy. So I repeat, in 25 years of service, not a single kid in my charge has ever been harmed by another. I can't speak about Connecticut...never been there. But I notice that the first to fall in that horrible incident were admins and teachers. First I would be happy to have you as my childs teacher, second, if the 2 aministraters that met the shooter were armed and trained I beleive it could have ended there, if classes were going I don't think too many kids would be in the hall way, at least not 20 and if there were and the admins were trained they would know when and when not to shoot.
> When the idea of arming teachers got hot, back around Xmas, I laughed it off, thinking it was too stupid to bother. Turned out, I was wrong. Many Utah teachers have latched on to the idea, and I've been talking with them about their decision to carry in school.
> 
> Guess what? Those few who are packing aren't packing to protect your kids. They're packing to protect themselves from your kids. You need to protect yourself first then those that need it.
> ...


I wanted to add that most of the shooters are also not proffessionally trained.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Now Mrs. Feinstein claims that certain government officials and 'others' will be exempt from the bill she produced the other day.....who the hell is 'others' and what kind of government official would need a firearm when she doesn't want the general population to have any?

This is one dangerous person.

[attachment=0:16eq4xu1]387042_462203317167529_1566400460_n.jpg[/attachment:16eq4xu1]


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

.45 said:


> Now Mrs. Feinstein claims that certain government officials and 'others' will be exempt from the bill she produced the other day.....who the hell is 'others' and what kind of government official would need a firearm when she doesn't want the general population to have any?
> 
> This is one dangerous person.
> 
> [attachment=0:289ws86e]387042_462203317167529_1566400460_n.jpg[/attachment:289ws86e]


She can't be serious, this is such a caricature of history that it's hilarious.
The "others" are the brown shirts, of coarse. Oops... pretty sure that went flying over the line.  :lol:


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

This showed up as edited in my post on page 4???????????????????????



> You seriously need to talk to your school district law dogs.................See you in court.


I assume it was from Finnegen, I don't really understand this could you explain? I don't know what you mean by janitor. If you are assuming that I am an employee of the school district you are mistaken. I provide communication services for several districts covering 5 counties in Utah and some in two other states. They buy communications equipment from me and I install, train them and service the equipment. I don't know what district you work for but if you assault someone doing nothing illegal then you will have the problem and loose your job. In my past post I said I would be happy to have you as a teacher for my children but with threats such as this I take that back and would think your superintendant and school board would like to know what kind of threats you are posting on the internet.

I will give you two examples, 1 the Washinton County Superintendant says employees of the school that have permits can carry at school, would you assaullt one of your co workers?


> [Washington County School District Superintendent Max Rose said the state of Utah permits any teacher to carry a concealed weapon on any public school campus.
> /quote]
> 2 One of my good friends was a resource officer in serveral schools in one of the districts and now is a police chief in a city in Utah and knows that I carry all the time, I will ask him how long it would take him to put one of us in cuffs and which one it would be if you made me eat tile :roll:


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I too gave Finn the benefit of the doubt on page four. His comments since then have made me realize that he has serious issues and causes me to question his judgement as one who is responsible for children. Really? I wonder why all the threats and "eat tile" comments? Are you as unstable as you sound? Making a blanket statement to hundreds of guys online threatening them is something I would expect from a hormone enraged high school bully. Once again I hope that your speak is all macho talk and that you are not stupid enought to really try to attack a lawful citizen with a gun. What choice would you leave that person other than to assume you are crazy and take protective action? Besides, how would you explain it to your class if an innocent janitor that you attacked kicked your butt royally and left you bleeding on the floor with full justification? Too many tough guys, not enough brains.-------SS


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

SS I am glad I am not alone in my thinking, trying to stay logical and without emotion.

I went back and read his first post again:



> Of course, that means that if you bring a gun into my school, you're going to eat tile. No, I'm not a tough guy - I'm just a wrestling coach who knows some illegal moves and *who doesn't give a gawddam about your rights.* Gun free zone? **** straight. You got a gun around my kids - you're a bad guy.


His other posts make more sense now. As for the wrestling, I wrestled for 5 years in Jr High and High School and I promise I would not use any wrestling moves


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

I guess the wrasslin' coach never bothered to research such things as "force continuum" or "justified use of force". It never ceases to amaze me how underestimated the janitor always is. Especially by teachers. They never seem to think that the janitor may have been other things in a previous life. Things that are a little less than impressed by the thought of an "illegal" wrestling move.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

LOL Loke, I did not say I wouldn't use what I learned in the military, but that is another topic I am unable to discuss


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

I was never taught any illegal moves. Only the ones that worked. But then again, some things are best left unsaid.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Aren't no rules in a fight other than prevail by any means!!! Rules ar for losers!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/30/obama-shifts-45m-armed-cops-schools-la-nra/

$126,000 per officer.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

356 new resource officers. 2 of which will go to a small town in Connecticut. That leaves 354 for the rest of the nation. Makes me feel a lot safer. (insert sarcasm smiley here)

Allowing school employees who are already trained and familiar with firearms (former military, law enforcement, and privately trained citizens) makes a lot more sense. And would cost nothing. But then again, we would miss out on big brother's ever watchful and caring eye. (insert another sarcasm smiley)


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Here is an interesting one that I am going to stir the pot with


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

Just when I thought I was gonna be able to buy some ammo.


What happens when you scan the little smart phone thingy? I don't own a smart phone or I'd try it. 


.


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

Screw the UN.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Bax, You're either very cruel, or naïve. I like cruel, and hope that's the case.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Cooky said:


> Just when I thought I was gonna be able to buy some ammo.
> 
> What happens when you scan the little smart phone thingy? I don't own a smart phone or I'd try it.
> 
> .


Nothing, its a fake document.


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> Nothing, its a fake document.


Too bad, if it were to take you to some communist propaganda site the joke would be complete.


----------

