Dutch01

Not sure if serious.....

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.

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 correct. Now that we are armed with that knowledge, the prudent thing to do would be to use that knowledge try to prevent another occurrence.

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.

Not likely. The PAL application asks if you have had a divorce or other significant breakup in the last X years (I forget the exact number). He's divorced, and they typically interview former spouses. She had said he was mentally ill, violent and abusive. That's not likely to get him a pass.

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

Are you decrying Trump's opportunism as well? Just curious.

I appreciate the answers guys. If we can find a way to sell reasonable background checks that would have prevented Mateen from getting his guns, while protecting the existing rights of law abiding citizens, then we'd have progress. I can only speak for myself, but I really think that's all anyone is trying to accomplish here.

Smart people recognize the limitations of their knowledge and involve experts. It really doesn't matter if he said "clip" or "magazine". It matters that he wants guys like Omar Mateen not not be able to buy guns. He lamented the fact that he can put him on a no fly list, but can't deny him a gun. He's right.

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.

I'll take that job if I can work from Canadian soil! You missed a fundamental distinction between the President and his detractors; he is attacking them for yet again refusing to even have a discussion on the topic. They are attacking him for wanting change in light of a systemic failure resulting in 49 needles deaths.

In light of 49 needless deaths, I think nit-picking terminology is a bit petty. It should be clear to everyone that this guy shouldn't have been able to buy ANY guns. If you disagree please feel free to speak up now. I'd like to know how anyone could defend that position. Instead of being honest about that and asking "how could we have prevented him from getting them", we are attacking people's grammar and use of terminology? How do you say to the families of the dead " We're sorry for your loss, but we steadfastly refuse even the most cursory review of existing procedures"?

Great report! I can't wait to get out again with my Son now.

?

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 ?

I agree. As an ancillary benefit, insurance will rise too. If it doesn't work, then escalate from there.

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.

Lol! Everyone here at work is saying the same thing. We were beat down and tired, plus the adrenaline from the fight and my arms burning etc, the thought of smiling never occurred to me!

I actually didn't think of pulling the anchor! If I didn't find that screw, my day would have been over before it started. They replaced my steering cable too, at least that worked well yesterday.

Walleye have been slow for us all this spring. We're getting some, but fewer and smaller than usual. I haven't yet figured out why......

I don't believe in karma - as in some cosmic scorekeeper who keeps track, but I do believe what we call karma is the cumulative effect of a series of good or bad decisions. So basically if we'd rolled over and gone home we'd have missed out, but we doubled down and got rewarded. I'll take those days when I can, because there's plenty of times it worked out the other way! I'm definitely going to savor the moment, it might be a long while before I see another fish like that. As for the boat, she's running good now, but I am going to have a talk with that marina tomorrow. Not pleased with them at all right now

Thanks! Good to know Chris. I wasn't sure just how big they get in the Kawarthas. I didn't think 42 would move the needle for a muskie guy. I loved it. I might have to actually start targeting them someday.

Yeah, I don't usually weigh my fish unless I'm keeping them. There's a slot everywhere I fish walleye so I've gotten used to the tape measure instead. I didn't want to weigh this one on my little scale and stretch it out vertically or worse have it shake off the scale and be flopping around in the boat.

I am not "anti-gun" by any stretch, but you have to wonder why so many Americans fight any attempt at reforming the system: "Mateen purchased two guns — a handgun and a “long gun” — approximately a week before the shooting, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Despite being questioned by the FBI in 2013 for suspected terrorist ties, then again in 2014, Mateen was still able to obtain the guns legally." Pretty hard to defend imo.