If the founding fathers didn't have guns, then we'd still be singing "God Save the Queen". And anyone who protested would be eliminated. Speech is useless without something to back it up... be it facts, evidence, or firepower. I love the History Channel shows you mentioned though, especially the one on Ben Franklin. Yeah, he was definitely a player...the Hef of the 18th century.
@Dunker ... that's why I get such a laugh when certain people and groups start with all that crap about how "holy" and "moral" our founding fathers were. Sure, they were brilliant and put together, because of the political trials of the day, a system where no one person or no one group can have "absolute power". It was a brilliant strategy which was actually "distrusting" of government and the first that tried to keep it impossible to rule like a king. But I can't help but laugh at this "holy Joe" label that is often pinned on our founding fathers. Ben Franklin was a lush with a taste for young girls; Jefferson did more with his female slaves than housework!; Adams was a serious drunk with a serious depression problem and I think it was Hamilton (not sure about this one) who had a hell of a temper and fought duels with damn near everybody! ... the list goes on and on as you know from those shows. Still, it does not take away from their genius but they were hardly the saints which people like to paint! In fact, they were VERY suspecious of religion because, under the Brits, there was a lot of religious persecution here in Philly as there was in England and also, the near absolute power of the catholic church in Europe was, then, only the "recent" past. These groups love to quote the works "In God We Trust" on the front of the dollar bill but they conveniently forget to mention the words " A New and Secular Order" on the back of the bill! I rather wish the mint would change in into English so the average citizen can realize it's there! Regarding firearms...I don't think the founding fathers ever anticipated current problems; in their day, only the wealthy had firearm ... even the revolutionary armie was sorely lacking. But you know, despite that and the intention of the founding fathers, the talk about their intensions and political/sociological concerns of the day is, however interesting, merely academic today. I enjoy such discussions but academic discussion rather than that of today and tomorrow does nothing to address an existing problem which, as you know merely from the news, is rapidly expanding well outside the cities.
gerry1 people tend to forget most where rich playboys even if they had a wife it dosent really change over the years but unlike 99.9% of the rich and elite today they where mavericks willing to lead a small populace of people to a balanced place founded on "law" now adays our "leaders" want us to bend over at the trafe and lap up their poo as they use it for lube >>........... =============================== Anyone know anythign about BB rifles? I am in a quandary pump/OC2 vrs spring spring http://www.airgunwarehouseinc.com/gamohuntersport.html OC2 (both 88 and 12 gram) http://www.airgunwarehouseinc.com/cr10ai.html Pump http://www.airgunwarehouseinc.com/be397co.html seems spring wins but the OC2 is not bad for dumping multi rounds into a target.
I remember my old "Daisy" pump BB gun LOL! Had a lot of fun with that thing. I know its a bit off topic but I wish I'd developed my cousin's skill with a bow and arrow and, belive it or not, a "slingshot". He was/is a taxidermist and learnt to use both extremely well in order to minimize than damage he'd inflict of whatever poor critters he ran into!
Gerry, I disagree, 22-250 with 52 Gr. Hollow Point Boat Tails. Great way to inflict maximum damage to the varmint in question. They don't suffer at all as their head is vaporized upon impact. Really puts fear into a murder of crows when one of their own suddenly turns into a poof bird a couple of seconds before they hear anything.
@BlivetNC ... well, you've outdone me! ...I use to do unspeakable things with frogs and firecrackers when I was a kid (I was a real sociopath in the making LOL!)
US House passes gun control bill The US House of Representatives has passed a bill that would bolster background checks on gun buyers. If it passes the Senate, it will be the first major gun control law since 1994. It was drafted after April's Virginia Tech massacre, which exposed how gunman Cho Seung-hui was able to buy two guns despite having mental health problems. The new bill would close a gap by requiring states to automate reporting of mental health and criminal records to a database used to check gun buyers. To become law, the measure must be approved by the Senate and be signed by President George W Bush. The bill came as a White House report on the Virginia Tech shootings was released which said concerns over privacy laws meant data on potentially dangerous students often did not make it on to the federal gun purchase database. A judge had ruled Cho needed mental health treatment but because the report never made it into federal records, he was able legally to buy the guns he used to kill 32 people and himself. 'Save lives' Democratic Rep John Dingell, a strong supporter of gun rights, was one of those involved in negotiations on the House bill. He said the legislation would "make a better system for public safety, law enforcement and for lawful and honest gun owners". The Virginia Tech shootings had "made it clear" that the national database used for gun ownership checks needed to be improved with better information and better technology, he said. Democratic Rep Carolyn McCarthy, who ran for office on a gun control platform after her husband was shot dead on a train, was also involved in drafting the bill. "This is a good policy that will change lives," she said. House Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi also welcomed the move, saying: "As the Virginia Tech shooting reminded us, there is an urgent need to improve the background check system." Gun lobby The legislation has been backed by the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA) gun lobby, which was involved in discussions with congressmen. The NRA said the bill would not disqualify anyone currently legally able to buy a weapon. Under legislation passed in 1968, people barred from buying guns include those convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison, drug addicts and those found by a court to be mentally disabled. The new bill, if it becomes law, would require states to supply the federal database with records of those disqualified from gun ownership and impose penalties if they fail to meet certain benchmarks. It also provides $250 million (£125m) a year over the next three years to help states automate their systems to meet the new requirements. The last major gun control legislation, passed in 1994 when the Democrats last controlled the House, banned some assault weapons. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6750869.stm
I can understand criminal records but "mental health" could open a serious can of worms ... there are a lot of "mental health" problems (probably most of them) that don't make someone a danger.
I agree, the mentally challenged should not be able to purchase or own firearms. Too many bad scenarios out there waiting to happen.
well the trouble is they will ban anyone that has had a "questionable" meeting with a shrink but at least tis a start to brining it in it can be polished over the years like most laws get polished via states/time anyway.
I agree the mental health of gun buyers should be a consideration. One problem is the newly passed HIPPA law which prevents a person's medical file from being shared without his permission.
I know understand what all of you are saying but "criminal convictions" are a rather cut and dried thing while mental health is about as subjective as you can get. A sociopath or psychopath can certainly be a danger while an OCD patient is in behavior modification because using three alarm clocks is annoying his neighbors and he gets anxious because his sock drawer is in disarray; can any database differentiate between the two? Mind you, guys, I'm only playing devil's advocate here. Living in Philly, as I've mentioned many times, leaves me with a distaste for the easy availability of weapons. I think the ex-seminarian in me is trying to imagine how they'll be able to validate the reasoning.
you are right,however I see it only for depression,suicide atemps that with any mental disorder that makes them a "threat" to them selfs or others will be gone after first,sadly this is the attention span of humans we are talking abotu tis going to take the law to evolve over time to get it right, with out that first step tho nothing will change.
Let's err on the side of safety. If a person is listed with a psych problem, I agree they should be listed as being unable to buy a firearm. If the person has a problem that doesn't pose a problem, then they should have the right to petition for a firearm license. Still, I think the listing of psych problems should be enough to prevent the initial sale of a firearm. I own a number of firearms. They are kept in a safe. They're not accessible by children or thieves. I enjoy collecting and shooting. I have one gun assigned for home protection and the rest stay fairly inaccessible. My guns kill far fewer people than cars. That leaves me wondering about a lot of the legislation. An interesting thought is that people won't touch firearms because a friend died from a gunshot wound. What amazes me is that a friend can die in a car accident and everyone drives to the funeral home and the cemetery without a thought to the cause of death. Sometimes I wonder if everyone is playing with a full deck.
@Pacman777, I agree fully, but what amazes me still is how many people will still get behind the wheel after consuming a few too many beers, or how many of these idiots still drive while paying more attention to their cell phones, Blackberries, computers, or some other non essential part of the car while driving. I'm sure autos kill far more people per year than firearms and knives do each year.
@BliverNC.. That one I can understand (in part). I was with a friend some years ago when he got pulled over on a "routine check" or road block which they tend to do here on big holidays. He had (what we thought to be) very little to drink (I wasn't driving so I was rather plastered) but Jack had one scotch and soda (which proved to be too strong it would seem) which he nursed for an hour or so before we left the party. It was enough to make him "legally drunk". Sure, some people just drink and drink and then get behind the wheel but there are those who think they're being responsible who are still "drunk driving". It doesn't take much at all. Moral of the story: don't drink at all if you're going to get behind the wheel because it takes much less than you think to be considered drunk).
Over in the UK, it is claimed that you are more dangerous behind the wheel whilst using a mobile phone than you are drunk. Depends on ones definition of drunk!
