In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 544
Online now 601 Record: 4057 (5/20/2013)
Where serious Louisville fans get the inside scoop on the Cardinals
Your headquarters for complete Louisville basketball and football recruiting coverage
The largest and most popular online community discussing Louisville's football program
The oldest and most popular University of Louisville basketball forum on the Internet
Any and all non-Cardinal talk occurs here
This is the place to talk some smack with rival schools or vent your frustration
This is the place to buy, sell or trade tickets and Cardinal memorabilia
Want to talk politics? Here’s the place. Right, Left or Center, your thoughts are welcome
The place for discussion on conference expansion
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
time for opinions:
ten round clip on all new firearms. No big issue. Also, not a huge fix. We've all discussed the ability to change mags quickly.
using existing law. I agree with this. There are a lot that can be enforced better.
background check. Absolutely. Loophole should have been closed years ago. If I go to a licensed dealer and am required to fill out the pertinent paperwork, then to me it would be fair that particular rule stand everywhere.
security monies to schools to be spent as seen fit....sound idea. Leave it to the individual schools systems on how best to make the areas safe.
training for police and beefing up police forces...no brainer. Also a sound idea.
addressing mental stability....beyond question. Once again, it will be tricky as to what is enough.
ban on assault style firearms...not likely. I truly believe this is the shoot the moon request out of the twenty three.....and least likely to pass congress.
strengthening the FFL process....once again, no issue. If you falsify this document, you have in fact falsified a federal document...should bear consequences.
The things I have seen so far are reasonable enough. Once again, that's to me....as far as others, perhaps not.
Putting effect into current laws will help as much as anything. There will be issues....always will.
So far, from what I've read, these are sound enough steps....no outlandish claims to pull guns off the streets, no overt violation of second amendment right.
Having said all that, the devil is always in the details. Those are yet to come.
the question came up how many lives this would save. The hard truth is no one will ever know. It would NOT have stopped Adam Lanza. Nor the Fort Hood shootings. Virginia Tech???? not likely....the identity of the shooter came as a shock to all.
Aurora????? that's an intriguing one, due to the fact we don't fully know what the psychiatric evaluation of that young man would have brought out.
I believe I'm on record as a firm believer in the second amendment. Although as I said the details would have to roll out, I see no mass conspiracy to overturn it in these plans. As far as the true effect, many say it will help. I don't know.
It this series of plans of the president does no more harm to the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens than it shows on face, and lives are saved, it's good work.
I'd rather not this particular president and this particular bunch in congress monkeying with my constitutional rights. But thats just me.
Knee jerk reactions are not needed considering there are over 350 million safe gun owners in the US. The percentage of deaths by assault weapons is so small. I fully understand and agree with stricter background checks and mental health checks. Banning magazines (magazines are not clips) over ten rounds is pointless. As any gun owner can show you, reloading a mag takes a second. It really doesn't matter the capacity because you can have as many mags as you want stored on you, high capacity or not. Regarding people who "check out" of society, one way or another they will do what they want. IMO a gun is the only thing you can use to stop a mad man with a gun. If worst case scenario the government tries to take away our rights, then that will be the beginning of the end. Look at Australia after the gun ban, every crime statistic went up, even new statistics were created from the violence. Criminals will never give up their guns and it will be easier in their minds to break into someone's house and do what they please. IMO there are so many other things that kill people in insanely high numbers that the government should focus on other than taking away or bending OUR RIGHTS.
"Having said all that, the devil is always in the details. Those are yet to come. "
just as in the health care bill there will be something sneaky we won't know about until the legislation is passed. you watch.
He had every right to go farther on his executive orders, but chose not to. Banning the importation of certain types of guns has been done by executive order before, but Obama chose to let congress hash it out. OH THE TYRANNY
On a related note, New York passed a bill several days ago that I believe should be a model for any new federal laws. Just my opinion. But what the president did yesterday is a good start.
WASHINGTON The White House announcement that President Obama will issue a number of executive orders meant to deter gun violence is causing anxiety among pro-gun groups fearful of a power...
Highlights of NY's Wide-Ranging Gun Control Bill
Just from what I've been trying to learn, I find it hard to not support limited magazines, more far reaching background checks, education, and identifying felons and the mentally ill who want access to guns. Frankly, I don't see too much of a problem with the proposals in the ABC News article Pirate posted, but with that said, I don't see how that would have stopped some of the recent shootings.
I don't want people to have their guns taken away, but I can see where there needs to be some tightening up on sales, training, and background checks.
Beatles, Bill Withers, Citizen Cope, Jim James, Levon Helm, Lupe Fiasco, Waylon, Beastie Boys, Pink Floyd, Paul Westerberg, V-roys
LOL training? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for universal background checks and preventing felons from obtaining firearms. But, training? I fail to see how this would stop these massacres. Now, you are just making it harder for people to exercise their 2nd Amendment right. When a person commits a felony, they lose those privileges. We need to have a way to make sure every gun is sold to a LAW ABIDING citizen. It needs to be an instant background check. Any sort of waiting period or training bs is pointless and dumb.
The NY law doesn't strip anyone of anything they already own. If you own assault weapons, they are grandfathered in, provided you register them, which I see absolutely no problem with.
But yes, the universal background checks even at gun shows and private sales are a must. One thing the right is losing their sh*t over is the order that reminds physicians they have a right to ask their patients about guns. If someone sees their doctor for a referral for mental troubles, depression, homocidal/suicidal thoughts, the doctor should be able to relay that info to the referred psychiatrist.
I have a problem with this. Universal criminal background checks I'm fine with. Doctors make mistakes. Putting others Constitutional rights in jeopardy via conjecture, even by a trained physician, oversteps the boundaries of the law. Just as the law protects the civil rights of would be felons, it should protect those who don't have a record.
I predict congress won't pass anything, if they do it won't amount to much. And Obama's executive orders don't amount to much either. I think Obama and the the other gun grabbers in congress have once again been reminded just how important this issues is to people.
too late for all that...the leftist media is in full force trying to expose people's "good names" in print ads and newspapers...they crossed the line. they're going to try to put these gun owners in the same category as a child sex offender.
This post was edited by miltlancaster17 15 months ago
Actually a fine point.
There are those who would argue that the Constitution actually guarantees no 'right' to privacy. I would say in this case it would be similar to the government requiring a citizen to quarter soldiers in their home....because you would be allowing the government say inside your head.
There is a line we have to watch for: who determines the 'social norm' for a person that wants a gun? who determines if the reason they want one is actually reasonable??? We kind of dance around that when we talk about what types of firearms people should 'need', I suppose....even if I have no problem with shrinking magazine size, etc....who gave me the ability to say
what another citizen 'needs' in order to be protected....or perhaps more importantly FEEL protected?
unusually good stuff ship...
This post was edited by 40bill 15 months ago
I've never been so disrespected.
Bill, I get your points....I think they are pretty solid.
Having said that though and wishing to play "devil's advocate" a bit, perhaps instead of telling people what they "need" or don't need, we could find a commonality in what is reasonable. Perhaps if a doctor feels unsettled about a patient and their ownership of a gun, they could refer that person to a counselor or whatever? In extreme cases where someone is hospitalized because they are delusional or whatever, it should be reasonable to expect that more than one doctor or psychiatrist check that person out and then they come to a group agreement on recommending whether that person should have access to firearms. Or am I off on this?
I think some of what is getting lost in some of the more solid pieces of the gun legislation proposals is that many are focused on whether it would have stopped a mass shooting. Well, probably not, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to be safer and exhibit more responsibility. I think that's something BMX will agree with. There is a large exchange of hyperbole (not just here) going on with this issue. One side seems to believe that gun owners don't care about the mass shootings and the other side believes the government wants to take all of their guns away.
edited for effect.
Pretty sure I have hurt Junky's feelings to the point where he doesn't want to talk anymore and that is fine. Not really into all the drama here. Just want to get down to brass tacks. Let's not have the rights of would be felons trumping those who obey the law.
Well, the two loudest sides will always be opposed, and to be honest.....our government has often proved to be a bit untrustworthy of what their final motives are.
Truth is that in large part that process is already in effect in the firearms form. There is a line asking about mental defect...as well as others. All that the sharing of information would do is to verify the statement.
Probably a slippery slope any way you go. Given the recent Supreme Court rulings, I would think they would rule that questions pertaining to mental capacity for someone who wishes to purchase a firearm do NOT violate constitutional right....because that can be avoided if you are not 'required' to purchase a firearm....it is a choice, just as you don't HAVE to have a driver's license if you choose not to drive a vehicle.
Time will tell.
The ban on assault style weapons isn't pointless at all. Nor is limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds. Honestly, I would have liked to have seen it limited to 5 rounds for rifles.
Yeah, it's been shown you can change a clip quickly. I've also seen an army veteran fumble around with one for about 5 minutes when we were shooting AR's. I've also seen a gun jam plenty of times. I'd rather a mass murderers gun jam on his 5th round before he changes his clip then on his 29th round. But that's just me. This measure is designed to reduce the effectiveness of a perpetrator, that's all.
Personally, I don't see the point of allowing the sale of assault rifles to citizens. If you want the experience of using one, then go serve your country, the same as you would have to do to fire artillery. As assault rifle is completely different than a hunting rifle, a shotgun or a pistol. The length of the barrel, the stock, the sites, everything about them is designed to kill human beings as effectively as possible, which is not even close to the same thing as "self defense" or hunting.
"There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist." Ayn Rand
So, saying that, as a member of the Armed Forces and a veteran, should I be able to own one?
That's very insightful.
its pretty funny actually. Reducing magzine capacity does nothing. Perhaps analyzing the kind of medications and their effects on the mind would be a good first step in stopping mass shooting of the kind we are seeing lately, most if not all that I'm aware of, the perp taking some form of medication.
The reason that dude in Aurora did not actually kill more people was his unfamiliarity with the weapon. I believe I read he had some cheap aftermarket 100 round drum that malfunctioned and he was unable to properly clear it. Otherwise, it could have been much worse.
I don't see the guns themselves as the problem in these mass shootings. I say that with a belief that some of the changes being proposed are good ideas.
Preventing this stuff from happening as often as possible by being more thorough in diagnosing mental illness as well as identifying mental illness is key. We can't NERF the world, but we can do a better job of helping the sick and making treatment not so looked down upon. There is also the responsibility angle in regards to those who own guns. Be aware of who has access to your home and buy a damn gun locker.
Again, this isn't going to keep us totally safe, but it could prevent some incidents. All we can hope for is to do the best we can in identifying what the problems are and to deal with them without having to wade through hyperbolic nonsense and that doesn't further the conversation.
When people who have never handled a gun begin tinkering with the 2nd amendment, this is what you get. It's comical to us, but to them, they have it all figured out.
No, you shouldn't. My dad was a Vietnam War veteran. He had no desire to own a tactical style rifle or anything with a large ammunition capacity. Why? Because, as he explained to me, the only reason they exist is to kill people.
He owned several other guns he hunted with, and they would have served just fine for self defense if needed. Probably better in some cases.
I'm curious as to the whether or not citizens are allowed to fire artillery, or legally own artillery, tanks, or fighter aircrafts, or arm them. I honestly don't know what the laws are concerning them, but I can guess. Do the hardcore proponents of the 2nd amendment think their rights are violated because they are not allowed to own an armed Apache helicopter? Why or why not?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports