aplumma

I believe no one has come up with a viable solution because there are two parties at the table and only one wants any change at all.

 

As for your analogy, you are right but if we say it's the rights of all gun owners not just Mateen, then it's not just versus the 49. It's gun owners versus the 33,000 Americans killed by guns every year.

 

Let's talk rights. The Declaration of Independence provides American citizens with the inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;"

 

Over 11,000 people are murdered with guns every year in the USA. Those people were deprived of their right to live. Are their rights less important than your Second Amendment rights?

 

I ask this out of a sincere desire to understand the reasoning behind your opinion. I am not trying to single you out or pick on you in particular. You have stood your ground and argued your opinion rather eloquently. Even if I disagree with your conclusions, I respect that.

The root of my opinions is justice or the rights of people to be innocent before being guilty. As you read further into it is the right to justice to be considered innocent until proven guilty. If he had not died then he would face the justice system that would have been found by his peers either guilty or innocent and while it does not bring back the dead it would be justice. We are still at the point of lets say tomorrow all guns are illegal (can't happen) but now that with a wish and a wave of the wand no new guns are made. Every law abiding person turned theirs in now who still has guns? Well half of the law abiding citizens will and all of the criminals will be armed. Now that you know before hand that guns have disappeared in the US and you want to be a terrorist you will either bring your own or find a bad guy who will sell you his. You have a better chance of outlawing cars that pollute and kill before guns will disappear.

There is nothing that guarantees the right for people to have access to alcohol. The number of deaths has to be higher than 11,000 people between medical deaths, car accidents, over indulging, and poor judgment. No one will outlaw alcohol because 51% of people want it. The penalty to non drinkers or rational drinkers is extensive financial burdens especially in Canada with the government collecting huge amounts of taxes to cover it. Ask yourself will alcohol be outlawed for the good of the public in Canada? (rhetorical)

Is it possible ? {Think prohibition in the US} All nations have issues that are unsolvable ours is guns since Canadians know the ins and outs of Canada I think it is better for you to name your secret poison.

Just to reiterate I am not happy with the way guns are regulatedto give you an insight into my mind, I took an oath when I joined the Navy

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I still believe in those words to fight for freedom of the oppressed to be guided by the laws of the country to enforce the written laws put before me by my superiors. The law is the point change the law legally in a manner that the citizens have voted in then all of my guns or alcohol or whatever the people decide will be followed. The new health care system in the US is so wrong on so many levels (which I will NOT answer or debate)BUT was voted in by the masses so I abide by it. I as you all are doing here in a polite and thoughtful way (thank you) will be doing my darndest to eliminate what I see as a major flaw in our system.

Art

If you want a real unique action with a high hookup ratio try this Live target Mouse. It outfishes there frogs for bass 2-1 every time. I put this lure on during any topwater bite.

.

First, we can't talk about how to achieve something without first agreeing we want to achieve it. So far, I don't hear any Republicans saying there's even a problem.

 

Second, I am not an expert on gun control or public policy. I recognize this and defer to those with more experience. Perhaps an expanded background check system would help. Perhaps we need to go further. But we can't even discuss options because Republicans have their fingers in their ears while singing Mary had a little lamb.

 

In my opinion doing nothing is not an option unless you actually want more massacres. And in my opinion, the rights of the 49 not to be murdered outweigh the rights of Mateen to have guns. So if you're going to err, I would suggest it's better to err on the side of the victims than the perp.

You are not erroring on 1 person you are erroring on every single person in the legal system. He is by definition at the time was a suspect not a felon when he bought the gun. I can make you a suspect with a phone call unfounded or not. I am not happy he got the guns I wish he did not get a gun but so far no one has come up with a viable solution either here on OFC or the whole United States. I personally think a unicorn will be found first.

Art

 

You are gonna carry 20 magazines? cause at an absolute minimum, thats how many this idiot would have had to of carried...and i can pretty much guarantee he let loose more than 100 rounds.

 

Just a thought.

 

anyone here care to tell me what the definition of insanity is? lol

The definition of insanity is not being in touch with reality. It is thinking that things will change just because you think they should. It is when the masses and the odds of change are extremely slim however hard you continue to press the issues with no hope of results in the real world.

I actually carry at least 20 mags to the range for my assorted pistols and rifles. This is a foreign and abstract thought to you because of your culture, I am glad of that. It took me awhile to get used to dropping a couple hundred bucks to make holes in paper and loud noises for practice. It however is the only way I have the confidence that I am a responsible gun owner and an excellent shot. To me a legally owned and maintained gun is a right that I am entitled to as much so as you feel you are entitled to drive a car. If you want to be frightened of something that is going to kill someone quicker than a gun you should see my collection of race bikes. lol

Art

A fair questionon. I do not believe the sole measure of competency to own a gun should be a lack of criminal record. we have to prove we are "fit to drive", why should we not also prove we are fit to own guns? In your case, as a law abiding citizen, the "fitness test" would be a minor inconvenience, but once passed you would still have all the Second Amendment rights you currently have.

 

Mateen had made threats to co-workers. He had abused his wife according to her. That should be enough for a much deeper look (at a minimum), if not an outright no.

But those are not crimes how many times have you said I'm going to kick the driver who cut you offs ass? A meaning less statement said with no conviction. Now let your 5 year old hear it and tell her teacher my daddy's going to kick some guys ass and now you have to clear your name over a useless statement. Some of the most devious people with the darkest thoughts can appear normal history shows us that on almost all of the most horrible criminals. I have done risk assessments on people with a friend of mine who does risk assessment /body guarding and it takes an average of 3 hours to get enough information to start an interviewing process on them. The leg work can take days depending on how long and far the trail is. Sure we need a better system to check out people but 51% of us say no so it will not happen.

Art

What an awful choice to face, Trump or Hillary. It's like being asked if you want to die by hanging or immolation....

I would laugh but I am faced with the truth of that statement. The last 3 elections have been damned if I do and damned more if I don't.

Art

 

a semi auto with a 5 round magazine...big big difference.

. The tactical way to shoot is to shoot all but the last bullet drop the mag with one in the chamber 5 or 35 you are already to rock and roll when your target is presented. I don't know about you but I can drop a 14 round 40 cal mag and have the next clip in in less time than it takes for you to shoot 2 bullets. As Lew says it is not the guns it IS the people. Since the guns are readily available already nolaw will correct this. Social help and better support and lines of communication are the only viable answer.

Art

Despite Art's protestations to the contrary, sometimes a question really is "yes" or "no".

 

My question is "Do you believe Omar Mateen should have been able to buy guns legally?"

 

I'm addressing this question to the following members:

 

Art

Brian B

Rick

JoePa

OVERCOAt

dave524

BITEME.Esq

(Sorry if I've missed anyone)

 

If you answer yes, well I don't really know what to say to that.

 

If your answer is no, ask yourself would you support changes to the background check system specifically designed to prevent an individual like Omar Mateen from having been able to buy those guns? Why or why not?

 

You could decline to answer, but that is an answer in itself.

A question to answer a question What law did he break that would prevent him from buying the gun?

If I called the police and said you have been slapping your wife and they interviewed you and found that you did not break the law. You then went to apply for a career changing security clearance and was denied would you feel justice was done? You have the right to be innocent until proven guilty here. I by no means think that he should have gotten a gun but he should have the right to be innocent till he is convicted by a jury of his peers. Less government is still something I believe in.

Art

Sweet bud nice family and fishing. You know winston on a tennis ball lure would be quite a fight. Make sure you have video though.

Art

Very nice trip nothing like family to make a trip special.

Art

nice fish Pete I am heading up to Nipissing for muskie opener this week. I hope I find some as nice as those.

Art

I have a friend who is fully vested up to class 3 (machine guns, silencer, short barrel rifles) who has a reloading station that can produce a round every 5 seconds or one pull one bullet. The powder hopper hold 3 lbs and the primer tray has a 500 capacity. He has to with the amount of rounds he fires a few times a week. He is thinking about getting a full auto reloader but hasn't found one he likes. The savings on something as common as the 9 mm is 5 cents and the .223 rifle is still 16 cents per round. The .50 caliber which has to be handloaded and takes 2 minutes each saves almost 2.00 a round.

Art

Control the inflammation is the key with stretching, advil,rest and external support. Masking the pain will just allow you to damage it more without knowing it.

Art

pretty hard to shoot 100 people with a 2 shot clip...

 

you can have your guns and still shoot too...just not in rapid succession...when was the last time you needed to shoot 100 rounds of ammo while hunting?

Your right you win I have never shot at an animal 100 times. I however have qualified for tactical courses using over 300 rounds to certify. I also have loaded over 500 rounds in assorted clips ranging from 7 - 35 rounds mags while shooting the gun range behind the house. I have picked up over 2000 casings after a group of us have been shooting at the range. I have reloaded over 5 thousand rounds in the winter. You will never understand, I can not give you more info to process since you are only looking for what ifs and how comes both are not an answer.

Art

 

Yes, we care. But I find that the more chances Americans pass up to better control their guns the harder it is for me to care.

I also hold this sentiment. If the same things keep happening and they don't change how can I care more about the victims than seemingly millions whom think their guns are worth more to them on a personal level, than hundreds of lives every year.

Or hows about the thousands of lives that are saved by having a gun in the right situation? They rarely make the paper but are present. Why do you think we Value the guns so highly? It is the freedom that we value more than a few hundred lives because we go to war and it cost us dearly in lives for our and others freedom.

If a few hundred lives saved is all you are asking for then stop people from drinking and smoking you will save hundreds of people in a month. Even easier give 1000.oo to a charity that feeds the children bang we saved a few hundred more.

Guns will not disappear no matter how hard you wish them away or what law you write. This is a given we might as well be trying to control alcohol and weed in Canada but we already know that doesn't work.

I know I haven't changed any ones mind and I am not trying to. The things I have written are an insight on what it really is like and what is not possible from my point of view. If you lived next door to the farm here you would find a very peaceful place that resembles pretty much your own piece of paradise.

Art

can you please explain to me exactly how this limits ones ability to attain a gun? It does not...it simply makes it more difficult.

It doesn't limit it as a mater fact any law you write will not make it harder to get a gun if you are willing to break the law. I can have a flame thrower, full auto machine gun and a 50 cal. sniper rifle in 24 hours if you have the money. Since it is breaking the law I would not do it. If Obama wants to do something he has to do it legally he must get the support of the people to enact a law. Executive orders are not for him to use just because he wants something. How would you like it if the Prime Minister of Canada decided he wanted the drinking age in Canada to be raised to 30 years old because to many young adults are killed in car accidents? I bet the 21-29 year olds would say heck no and the 30-40 would say mostly they do not care. Now let him raise the age to 40 and if 51 percent of Canadians would be denied alcohol it would never pass no matter how right or just it is. While it is a true statement that alcohol has no real benefit meaning it cost everyone money with health care, police enforcement, robberies, and the list goes on. Now that alcohol is illegal does this make the problem go away? Heavens no it is just beginning you now have unregulated alcohol twice as much work for the police health damage from unknown brewing tactics and even more underground crime. ( while this seems like a fantasy or some untested theory it is from the Prohibition time right out of the history books). Prevention before pandoras box is opened is the correct answer other than that damage control will at best make legal gun owners weaker than the bad guys.

Art

A quick Google check indicates that toddlers in the U.S. have killed more people in 2015 than terrorists. So far this year, 23 people have been killed by toddlers in the U.S..

Please don't start with the analogy of how many people have been killed in cars this year we all know that toddlers can't reach the pedals and steer at the same time.

HH

 

Ps - to Art

I hope you understand that the reason we do this kind of thing is that we care about our neighbours to the south. If we didn't care, we would be up here eating popcorn watching the carnage ensue.

I have never doubted that you all are looking after our best interest but so far no one has a viable answer. I am just playing the cards that are dealt as best as I can. I have one wish and that is Canada Never allows handguns to be as easily available as they are in the US. I am betting I can find a statistic that lightning, sharks and even little old ladies with one leg divorced from grumpy old men have killed with a gun.

Art

I really hate how every time something like this happens the topic immediately goes to gun control. Gun control is definitely part of the problem, but almost equally, and maybe even morseo in some cases, the issue includes:

 

-mental health

-religion

-radicalizing religion

-homophobia

-bigotry

-racism

-sexism

-bullying

-marginalization

-failures of past administrations allowing these radical groups to prosper

-cultural violence

-etc.

 

To say that banning the "other" religion or banning guns of some sort will make this go away is very short sighted and narrow minded. There is so much to this it's difficult to debate.

 

If you want my narrow minded opinion, removing hatred and vengeance from society is where we should start. Yes, it's true, people kill people. We should try to make it so people don't want to kill each other.

Well said and I TOTALLY agree.

Art

I just caught a bunch of crappies

Bring em over and we can clean them with my gun.Lol

Art

aplumma did you get hacked by billy bob

Nope I gets all of them their thoughts all by my selfs

Art

You are correct in your observation, Art. It is intentional on my part. You yourself observed that it is very difficult to get two polar opposites to come together over a forum. The discussion tends to devolve, in this case to banning hammers and cars, and the right to defense using guns versus the right to be safe from guns. It amounts to everybody in a room shouting their opinions.

 

When you find a possible area of compromise (in this case a review of the existing background check process), framing the question as I did can sometimes allow each party a means of softening their positions without losing face.

 

I would hazard a guess that almost all NRA members would agree Mateen should not have been able to buy those guns. It would be hard to argue otherwise in the face of what we know. Perhaps the question will force the "pros" to examine how and why he got them. Perhaps they will soften their position.

 

The "anti" lobby is frustrated by the intransigence of the NRA. If a compromise could be found here perhaps the two sides could be brought closer together.

 

I could be wrong, but that's an explanation of why I asked that specific question. It's a tactic I have used in business to find a way to move forward in small steps when dealing with two seemingly incongruent positions.

 

Finally, the word force is inaccurate. OFC members are free to answer or not answer

You are correct sir Force is the wrong word. I was at a loss for a less forceful word at the time.

Art

 

Art,

 

I think you have explained the pleasure of owning and using these guns in a way that many of us non-gun owners can at least begin to understand. But are you really saying that some peoples' lives should be put in danger because because other, such as you, can have the pleasure of owning and using these guns?

This is where we get in a little deeper into the politics and I am not a person who will discuss politics over the internet. If the government can change there definition of what you can have and what you can't have easily we would have so few freedoms and we would not understand them then society would be unguided. Case in point is look at the rules and regulations in Canada where each providence has different limits sizes restricted areas that it takes a lawyer to read them. I have been investigated, finger printed, and found to be nothing more than a law abiding citizen so why can't I have the legal gun of my choice? Do drivers licenses say you can only drive a station wagon instead of a Porsche ? I still say it is not the gun that is an issue I have never come home to find that one of my guns shot someone while I was out.

Art

 

False, Obama attempted to introduce a more stringent background checking system and it was shot down immediately. Nowhere did it state that he would restrict the type of weapons available or stop anyone from legally purchasing weapons, it simply asked for a more stringent background checking system and the lobbyists completely shot it down.

Actually it was not supported because it took away the right for private citizens from selling arms. It was an attempt to make selling of guns over the internet and at gunshows illegal. This is already covered for a legal transaction you must have a licensed FFL do a back round check before purchase. This can now be run thru the data base quickly and effectively by gun shows who have FFL dealers available. It did not increase the back round checks it was only to define who can sell arms. If you read deeper you will find that a gun can be gifted within the state between 2 people with no back round check and only a Notary signature. This has been something that NRA and other responsible gun owners have been attempting to change.

More importantly he tried to do it as an executive order which he does not have the authority to do. We have Congress to hear the peoples wishes and act if a leader tries to bypass the will of the people. Politics is a sleazy arena with both sides claiming the other is wrong and immoral.

Art

Why don't all you clowns admit you just like playing with guns? It's got nothing to do with freedom or the ridiculous notion of overthrowing an oppressive government. If you allow enough people to own assault rifles every once in a while a bunch of innocent people will lose their lives and families will be devastated. And all the idiotic arguments about banning cars and screwdrivers and knives and hammers come up and home defense blah blah blah. Watch Jim Jeffries stand up routine on gun control it outlines how Idiotic the whole argument is quite nicely.

First off to refer to ALL people who own guns as clowns removes all validity to your statement. Your slanted views and prejudism of something that you are not entitled to reek of either jealousy or you are trolling this forum. One will get you laughed at and the other will get you the scorn of the people on the forum. Please put more thought and be more careful with you wording.

By the logic being spouted by our friends here, from south of the border, they had better start updating the arsenal as I am sure that their government is constantly upgrading their arsenal. How on earth will you be able to fight your government, defend your rights, if the government has better guns then the public?

I'm starting to feel like I should not be feeling bad for the victims of this horrific event, but for all Americans who are being forced to live in a place where there is no right to live, just the right to defend.

HH

I do not believe that the average citizen is afraid the government is outpacing the masses with their arms available. The right to arms is and always has been to protect our shores from internal and external threats which is any armed force/person not just the government. We have to date militia that are still part of our culture and it has a value that some can not understand today but it was the reason we have our freedom in the past. The reason to live is the freedom you enjoy if you are in a place you are unhappy then it is not truly a good life.

I'm weighing in on this now only because of HH's comment. As Canadians, we cannot truly comprehend the depth of the gun culture in the US. Just as they cannot understand our aversion to it. This is because as HH illustrated, we view it from opposite angles. They see gun ownership as a right, as a basic need for life; food, shelter, security. We see it as something that erodes our security.

My work involves the small arms industry in Canada and the US. For perspective, I can confirm that one of the well known US firearms manufacturers produces 30,000 guns per MONTH. That's one manufacturer. In contrast, a top 3 Canadian manufacturer is about 6,000 per YEAR with the majority being exported.

I believe that Art believes every word he says and that if he owned a million guns himself the country would be safer than Canada. Unfortunately, that is not the case and the lack of control - of the few people that need it, is overshadowing the freedoms of the many that don't.

This is clearly a "when in Rome" scenario. If I lived in the US, in that culture...Art would be the first guy I'd call for a how to defend my family lesson. In reverse, if Art moved here, I could tell him to happily keep his collection of non prohibited firearms but the bedside home security stuff isn't necessary. Sleep easy.

With so many guns freely distributed the conversations about US gun control are about 100 years too late.

And with so many model countries that have low gun crime coupled with reasonable gun control, the choice to defend a wide open system that is clearly failing is a purposeful one. If the government tried any form of control now, they'd get their uprising sooner than later.

God bless the innocent that die needlessly and those that live in fear...in any country.

I actually do not want a million guns but I want the ability to own a million legally obtained guns through an avenue that attempts to keep them out of bad peoples hands. Some might be thinking that I am a person that spends lots of time with his gun. To put it in perspective I spend more time a year brushing my teeth than shooting my guns. If I were ever blessed to move to Canada I would leave all of my illegal arms in the USA because your governments laws have assured you it will be done that way. As I said and will say it is not my intent to change any ones mind on gun control it is a concept that is way to deep to debate on a forum when the people are looking at it from vastly different directions. Both from cultural and misinformation it would take a case of beer and 2 or 3 nights around a campfire to just get to neutral ground.

This is a deflection. Let's parse all the "what ifs" and make it simple.

 

Do you believe this individual should have been able to buy guns legally?

 

If yes, no change is required to maintain the status quo.

 

If no, then start supporting reasonable and effective background checks.

 

It's irksome that the pro gun lobby treats any suggestion of the smallest change as an automatic assault on the Constitution.

Actually the NRA is supportive of more regulation and training as long as it is not limiting law abiding citizens from purchasing the weapons available at this time. I have an observation from reading many of your posts: you attempt in discussions to make extremely complicated issues fit into a yes or no question which does not due justice to the issues we allow to be discussed here at OFC. Forcing a discussion into a yes or no format is a debating technique that while easier to argue usually loses the debate from lack of depth of subject matter.

Art

Well done and some great sizes to them.

Art