Peaunt, why ban "assault" weapns and not semi automatic hunting rifles?

OK let's take a look at some reality please. Did you know it is easier for a poor person to get a gun than it is for them to get mental health treatment? I can remember everyone regardless of political preference saying these shooters have mental problems. Did you know here in Arizona where I live, you can buy a gun even if you have a potentially violent mental disorder? How about let's hold some standard that would lower the chances of people not mentally fit to get guns from getting them? How about we learn a little history as well and realize that gun violence was a problem in this nation before and making gun owners follow reasonable regulations is how it was slowed. In my hometown of Columbia Ms. back in the 1880s and going into the 1890s church services couldn't be held because every time they tried, someone would could with a gun and start shooting. Finally, the people said they wanted their church more than the right to shoot people at church and they refused to let people take guns into places like church, school, etc. Oh my imagine how tough that be, not being able to take my gun into church, oh what an abuse of my freedoms. Oh my, imagine people getting better mental health treatment and not being able to get a gun and blow people away. Ok thanks, and now you can return to your arming teachers and everyone having a gun as if it is some new concept never done in this country, even though the history proves you wrong.

(12-16-2012 09:51 AM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  OK let's take a look at some reality please. Did you know it is easier for a poor person to get a gun than it is for them to get mental health treatment? I can remember everyone regardless of political preference saying these shooters have mental problems. Did you know here in Arizona where I live, you can buy a gun even if you have a potentially violent mental disorder? How about let's hold some standard that would lower the chances of people not mentally fit to get guns from getting them? How about we learn a little history as well and realize that gun violence was a problem in this nation before and making gun owners follow reasonable regulations is how it was slowed. In my hometown of Columbia Ms. back in the 1880s and going into the 1890s church services couldn't be held because every time they tried, someone would could with a gun and start shooting. Finally, the people said they wanted their church more than the right to shoot people at church and they refused to let people take guns into places like church, school, etc. Oh my imagine how tough that be, not being able to take my gun into church, oh what an abuse of my freedoms. Oh my, imagine people getting better mental health treatment and not being able to get a gun and blow people away. Ok thanks, and now you can return to your arming teachers and everyone having a gun as if it is some new concept never done in this country, even though the history proves you wrong.

Not much of that made any sense.

So, people walked into churches with guns and shot the place up, and the way that was stopped was by simply telling people they could no longer walk into church with guns and shoot the place up? Really? That's the story you're going with?

People are also told they can't take guns onto school grounds.

(12-16-2012 09:51 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Peaunt, why ban "assault" weapns and not semi automatic hunting rifles?

Don't forget high capacity magazines

(12-16-2012 10:03 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:51 AM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  OK let's take a look at some reality please. Did you know it is easier for a poor person to get a gun than it is for them to get mental health treatment? I can remember everyone regardless of political preference saying these shooters have mental problems. Did you know here in Arizona where I live, you can buy a gun even if you have a potentially violent mental disorder? How about let's hold some standard that would lower the chances of people not mentally fit to get guns from getting them? How about we learn a little history as well and realize that gun violence was a problem in this nation before and making gun owners follow reasonable regulations is how it was slowed. In my hometown of Columbia Ms. back in the 1880s and going into the 1890s church services couldn't be held because every time they tried, someone would could with a gun and start shooting. Finally, the people said they wanted their church more than the right to shoot people at church and they refused to let people take guns into places like church, school, etc. Oh my imagine how tough that be, not being able to take my gun into church, oh what an abuse of my freedoms. Oh my, imagine people getting better mental health treatment and not being able to get a gun and blow people away. Ok thanks, and now you can return to your arming teachers and everyone having a gun as if it is some new concept never done in this country, even though the history proves you wrong.

Not much of that made any sense.

So, people walked into churches with guns and shot the place up, and the way that was stopped was by simply telling people they could no longer walk into church with guns and shoot the place up? Really? That's the story you're going with?

People are also told they can't take guns onto school grounds.

oh sorry I forget people who watch Fox Noise er News are hear so you have to try to make it on their level. The people in the town wanted their church services so they along with the city leaders put ordinances (laws) in place to leave your guns out of churches. Also some said in accounts I found in my research, that if you really believe in God enough that he will protect you, then why do you need to bring a gun in? Maybe your faith isn't what you say.

I wonder have you ever been in a place where you had to make a decision quickly on if you will shoot and kill another person?

(12-16-2012 10:03 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:51 AM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  OK let's take a look at some reality please. Did you know it is easier for a poor person to get a gun than it is for them to get mental health treatment? I can remember everyone regardless of political preference saying these shooters have mental problems. Did you know here in Arizona where I live, you can buy a gun even if you have a potentially violent mental disorder? How about let's hold some standard that would lower the chances of people not mentally fit to get guns from getting them? How about we learn a little history as well and realize that gun violence was a problem in this nation before and making gun owners follow reasonable regulations is how it was slowed. In my hometown of Columbia Ms. back in the 1880s and going into the 1890s church services couldn't be held because every time they tried, someone would could with a gun and start shooting. Finally, the people said they wanted their church more than the right to shoot people at church and they refused to let people take guns into places like church, school, etc. Oh my imagine how tough that be, not being able to take my gun into church, oh what an abuse of my freedoms. Oh my, imagine people getting better mental health treatment and not being able to get a gun and blow people away. Ok thanks, and now you can return to your arming teachers and everyone having a gun as if it is some new concept never done in this country, even though the history proves you wrong.

Not much of that made any sense.

So, people walked into churches with guns and shot the place up, and the way that was stopped was by simply telling people they could no longer walk into church with guns and shoot the place up? Really? That's the story you're going with?

People are also told they can't take guns onto school grounds.

people aren't suppose to drive their cars 100 mph on the interstate either but some try it. If you get caught here in Arizona doing that you will go to jail, and pay a good deal of your money. It does get more to slow down but you always have those who think the law is there to be broken or take pride in breaking it, but it is stupid to say well some will break the law so why have it.

(12-16-2012 10:17 AM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:03 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:51 AM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  OK let's take a look at some reality please. Did you know it is easier for a poor person to get a gun than it is for them to get mental health treatment? I can remember everyone regardless of political preference saying these shooters have mental problems. Did you know here in Arizona where I live, you can buy a gun even if you have a potentially violent mental disorder? How about let's hold some standard that would lower the chances of people not mentally fit to get guns from getting them? How about we learn a little history as well and realize that gun violence was a problem in this nation before and making gun owners follow reasonable regulations is how it was slowed. In my hometown of Columbia Ms. back in the 1880s and going into the 1890s church services couldn't be held because every time they tried, someone would could with a gun and start shooting. Finally, the people said they wanted their church more than the right to shoot people at church and they refused to let people take guns into places like church, school, etc. Oh my imagine how tough that be, not being able to take my gun into church, oh what an abuse of my freedoms. Oh my, imagine people getting better mental health treatment and not being able to get a gun and blow people away. Ok thanks, and now you can return to your arming teachers and everyone having a gun as if it is some new concept never done in this country, even though the history proves you wrong.

Not much of that made any sense.

So, people walked into churches with guns and shot the place up, and the way that was stopped was by simply telling people they could no longer walk into church with guns and shoot the place up? Really? That's the story you're going with?

People are also told they can't take guns onto school grounds.

oh sorry I forget people who watch Fox Noise er News are hear so you have to try to make it on their level. The people in the town wanted their church services so they along with the city leaders put ordinances (laws) in place to leave your guns out of churches. Also some said in accounts I found in my research, that if you really believe in God enough that he will protect you, then why do you need to bring a gun in? Maybe your faith isn't what you say.

I wonder have you ever been in a place where you had to make a decision quickly on if you will shoot and kill another person?

Still nonsensical. Maybe try moving UP to our level.

(12-16-2012 10:21 AM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:03 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:51 AM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  OK let's take a look at some reality please. Did you know it is easier for a poor person to get a gun than it is for them to get mental health treatment? I can remember everyone regardless of political preference saying these shooters have mental problems. Did you know here in Arizona where I live, you can buy a gun even if you have a potentially violent mental disorder? How about let's hold some standard that would lower the chances of people not mentally fit to get guns from getting them? How about we learn a little history as well and realize that gun violence was a problem in this nation before and making gun owners follow reasonable regulations is how it was slowed. In my hometown of Columbia Ms. back in the 1880s and going into the 1890s church services couldn't be held because every time they tried, someone would could with a gun and start shooting. Finally, the people said they wanted their church more than the right to shoot people at church and they refused to let people take guns into places like church, school, etc. Oh my imagine how tough that be, not being able to take my gun into church, oh what an abuse of my freedoms. Oh my, imagine people getting better mental health treatment and not being able to get a gun and blow people away. Ok thanks, and now you can return to your arming teachers and everyone having a gun as if it is some new concept never done in this country, even though the history proves you wrong.

Not much of that made any sense.

So, people walked into churches with guns and shot the place up, and the way that was stopped was by simply telling people they could no longer walk into church with guns and shoot the place up? Really? That's the story you're going with?

People are also told they can't take guns onto school grounds.

people aren't suppose to drive their cars 100 mph on the interstate either but some try it. If you get caught here in Arizona doing that you will go to jail, and pay a good deal of your money. It does get more to slow down but you always have those who think the law is there to be broken or take pride in breaking it, but it is stupid to say well some will break the law so why have it.

You mean like people who choose to disregard the laws and kill others.

(12-16-2012 10:25 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:21 AM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:03 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:51 AM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  OK let's take a look at some reality please. Did you know it is easier for a poor person to get a gun than it is for them to get mental health treatment? I can remember everyone regardless of political preference saying these shooters have mental problems. Did you know here in Arizona where I live, you can buy a gun even if you have a potentially violent mental disorder? How about let's hold some standard that would lower the chances of people not mentally fit to get guns from getting them? How about we learn a little history as well and realize that gun violence was a problem in this nation before and making gun owners follow reasonable regulations is how it was slowed. In my hometown of Columbia Ms. back in the 1880s and going into the 1890s church services couldn't be held because every time they tried, someone would could with a gun and start shooting. Finally, the people said they wanted their church more than the right to shoot people at church and they refused to let people take guns into places like church, school, etc. Oh my imagine how tough that be, not being able to take my gun into church, oh what an abuse of my freedoms. Oh my, imagine people getting better mental health treatment and not being able to get a gun and blow people away. Ok thanks, and now you can return to your arming teachers and everyone having a gun as if it is some new concept never done in this country, even though the history proves you wrong.

Not much of that made any sense.

So, people walked into churches with guns and shot the place up, and the way that was stopped was by simply telling people they could no longer walk into church with guns and shoot the place up? Really? That's the story you're going with?

People are also told they can't take guns onto school grounds.

people aren't suppose to drive their cars 100 mph on the interstate either but some try it. If you get caught here in Arizona doing that you will go to jail, and pay a good deal of your money. It does get more to slow down but you always have those who think the law is there to be broken or take pride in breaking it, but it is stupid to say well some will break the law so why have it.

You mean like people who choose to disregard the laws and kill others.

I asked you if you had ever been in the position where you had to make a quick decision on shooting and killing a person or not. I noticed you didn't answer so I take it you haven't been. Am I correct or not?

(12-16-2012 10:04 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:51 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Peaunt, why ban "assault" weapns and not semi automatic hunting rifles?

Don't forget high capacity magazines

This rifle used wouldn't have been stopped by the assault ban. It's not even defined as one by the fairly strict CT laws. I have seen no reports about the size of the magazine used, but a magazine is a pretty easy thing to make, no matter the size. Ban their sale, and someone who wants one will just make one. As usual, the claims from the anti-gun crowd only address the law-abiders and not those who murder people.

(12-16-2012 09:51 AM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  Finally, the people said they wanted their church more than the right to shoot people at church and they refused to let people take guns into places like church, school, etc. Oh my imagine how tough that be, not being able to take my gun into church, oh what an abuse of my freedoms.

So, you're saying that if we post a little sign outside schools saying that you can't bring your gun inside that this would have been thwarted?

(12-16-2012 10:35 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:51 AM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  Finally, the people said they wanted their church more than the right to shoot people at church and they refused to let people take guns into places like church, school, etc. Oh my imagine how tough that be, not being able to take my gun into church, oh what an abuse of my freedoms.

So, you're saying that if we post a little sign outside schools saying that you can't bring your gun inside that this would have been thwarted?

come on you certainly aren't going to use that defense are you? If so then let's go further with that idea, why should we have a constitution? Why should we have rules written in sports because they don't thwart violations. Try another avenue that is too too weak.

Costas was correct. It's the gun culture.

(12-16-2012 09:25 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:15 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 07:37 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 05:42 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Just saw a report that he had tried to buy a rifle legally but was denied. So the system worked.

It worked well enough to kill 20 children

Peanut wants Obama to ban all "assault rifles" or require people to have gun safes. The Brady nuts ave been floating registration of "assault weapons" with Local PD's and the gun safe idea all weekend.

Peanut will ask now why I need "assault weapons" and my answer is, and always: "To protect me, my family, and my property from people like you."

Assault weapons were banned in the USA until 2004. You need a gun because you are afraid of your shadow and I don't require one because I'm not.

And that ban did a hell of a lot of good stopping the North Hollywood Shootout. Oh wait, no it didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

(12-16-2012 10:47 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:25 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:15 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 07:37 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 05:42 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Just saw a report that he had tried to buy a rifle legally but was denied. So the system worked.

It worked well enough to kill 20 children

Peanut wants Obama to ban all "assault rifles" or require people to have gun safes. The Brady nuts ave been floating registration of "assault weapons" with Local PD's and the gun safe idea all weekend.

Peanut will ask now why I need "assault weapons" and my answer is, and always: "To protect me, my family, and my property from people like you."

Assault weapons were banned in the USA until 2004. You need a gun because you are afraid of your shadow and I don't require one because I'm not.

And that ban did a hell of a lot of good stopping the North Hollywood Shootout. Oh wait, no it didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

and look how bad rules in football are, every game both teams break the rules so we need to just throw out the rules. Wow Einstein!!!

(12-16-2012 10:50 AM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:47 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:25 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:15 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 07:37 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  It worked well enough to kill 20 children

Peanut wants Obama to ban all "assault rifles" or require people to have gun safes. The Brady nuts ave been floating registration of "assault weapons" with Local PD's and the gun safe idea all weekend.

Peanut will ask now why I need "assault weapons" and my answer is, and always: "To protect me, my family, and my property from people like you."

Assault weapons were banned in the USA until 2004. You need a gun because you are afraid of your shadow and I don't require one because I'm not.

And that ban did a hell of a lot of good stopping the North Hollywood Shootout. Oh wait, no it didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

and look how bad rules in football are, every game both teams break the rules so we need to just throw out the rules. Wow Einstein!!!

Poor comparison.

(12-16-2012 10:43 AM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:35 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:51 AM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  Finally, the people said they wanted their church more than the right to shoot people at church and they refused to let people take guns into places like church, school, etc. Oh my imagine how tough that be, not being able to take my gun into church, oh what an abuse of my freedoms.

So, you're saying that if we post a little sign outside schools saying that you can't bring your gun inside that this would have been thwarted?

come on you certainly aren't going to use that defense are you? If so then let's go further with that idea, why should we have a constitution? Why should we have rules written in sports because they don't thwart violations. Try another avenue that is too too weak.

You really are just babbling at this point. You're comparing the constitution to the rules for games? Please, take a bigger leap of logic.

(12-16-2012 10:50 AM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:47 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:25 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:15 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 07:37 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  It worked well enough to kill 20 children

Peanut wants Obama to ban all "assault rifles" or require people to have gun safes. The Brady nuts ave been floating registration of "assault weapons" with Local PD's and the gun safe idea all weekend.

Peanut will ask now why I need "assault weapons" and my answer is, and always: "To protect me, my family, and my property from people like you."

Assault weapons were banned in the USA until 2004. You need a gun because you are afraid of your shadow and I don't require one because I'm not.

And that ban did a hell of a lot of good stopping the North Hollywood Shootout. Oh wait, no it didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

and look how bad rules in football are, every game both teams break the rules so we need to just throw out the rules. Wow Einstein!!!

WTF? That's not even remotely related to this thread. But I'll play your dumb game: Spearing is a problem. So lets ban all helmets for everyone. That'll stop the problem. But then James Harrison goes out with a helmet on anyways.

(12-16-2012 11:01 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:50 AM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:47 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:25 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:15 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Peanut wants Obama to ban all "assault rifles" or require people to have gun safes. The Brady nuts ave been floating registration of "assault weapons" with Local PD's and the gun safe idea all weekend.

Peanut will ask now why I need "assault weapons" and my answer is, and always: "To protect me, my family, and my property from people like you."

Assault weapons were banned in the USA until 2004. You need a gun because you are afraid of your shadow and I don't require one because I'm not.

And that ban did a hell of a lot of good stopping the North Hollywood Shootout. Oh wait, no it didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

and look how bad rules in football are, every game both teams break the rules so we need to just throw out the rules. Wow Einstein!!!

WTF? That's not even remotely related to this thread. But I'll play your dumb game: Spearing is a problem. So lets ban all helmets for everyone. That'll stop the problem. But then James Harrison goes out with a helmet on anyways.

I'll even expand it. Proponents say that the helmet has led to players taking bigger risks, more dangerous play. So getting rid of it should reign in players. Never mind that I'd like to have a helmet on when I'm on the bottom of the pile and players are kicking and kneeing me in the head.

(12-16-2012 11:01 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:50 AM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:47 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:25 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:15 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Peanut wants Obama to ban all "assault rifles" or require people to have gun safes. The Brady nuts ave been floating registration of "assault weapons" with Local PD's and the gun safe idea all weekend.

Peanut will ask now why I need "assault weapons" and my answer is, and always: "To protect me, my family, and my property from people like you."

Assault weapons were banned in the USA until 2004. You need a gun because you are afraid of your shadow and I don't require one because I'm not.

And that ban did a hell of a lot of good stopping the North Hollywood Shootout. Oh wait, no it didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

and look how bad rules in football are, every game both teams break the rules so we need to just throw out the rules. Wow Einstein!!!

WTF? That's not even remotely related to this thread. But I'll play your dumb game: Spearing is a problem. So lets ban all helmets for everyone. That'll stop the problem. But then James Harrison goes out with a helmet on anyways.

agree it is a silly discussion and if you go back and read it was not me who went here. I told of a historical situation and how the problem of stopping church shootings in the 1880s and 1890 era of my hometown by not allowing people to bring their guns into the church services. Someone posted something like putting up a sign will deter shootings as if it was a smart reply (you are confirming my point it wasn't) and so now we can move on from that silly defense.

If we as a society refuse to allow such things as guns in places like churches and schools, we will certainly provide security for our people. If everyone or most everyone having guns had worked we wouldn't have moved away from it long ago. I don't think my right to carry my gun is taken away if a law says you can't bring that gun into a school, or church. I really don't feel that infringes on my 2nd amendment rights and I have no trouble not taking my gun there. In fact I don't ever recall feeling I needed to take my gun to church.