Here's a guy who owns a gun manufacturing company telling us that if there are any restrictions put on gun ownership...if the laws go "one inch further"...he's going to start shooting people.

This guy is exactly the type of person who should fail every possible psych exam to carry a weapon.



And, apparently in Tennessee being an absolute total fuckin idiot does hurt...at least it hurts his ability to be both insane and armed...which I contend hurts absolutely no one, and may actually help.

http://www.wsmv.com/story/20559778/tn-firearms-instructor-gains-attention-from-youtube-rant

He also claims to be a gun instructor (the State of Tennessee says he is not licensed to be a gun instructor.

He was a Chief of Police in a small town of 500 people, and wanted to form a SWAT team there, so the mayor fired him.

This dude is the type of guy who shouldn't carry and makes those of us who are responsible gun owners look like fuckin fools.

Fish on...

Todd

uhhhhh... wow... yeah, thats all i got...

He's a nut case.....'nuf said.

So the next question...I think we can safely assume that this nutcase is far from the only nutcase out there with a gun...

Should he be carrying?

If so, why?

If not, how do we; 1. stop people like him from getting guns in the first place, and 2. get the guns from nuts like him if he's already got them?

These are difficult questions, and the answers are fraught with peril.

Fish on...

Todd

What's your plan, Chuck?

Fish on...

Todd

Should he be carrying? Who knows? How serious is he? Plenty of "tough guys" who are nothing more than noise.
Lying politicians affect how many lives with their lies? Do we hang them? Lying insurance companies have killed how many? Do we burn them at the stake?

Just an idea.....(1)

Polygraph before purchase if armament is purchased from a dealer? Questions would need to be from a form created by someone with an ability to determine the likelihood of the purchaser to initiate a weapon encounter. Simple scoring system, cost to be added to purchase price.

Of course none of the above applies to gun deals outside of the loop.

(2) get guns back from nuts? No way to do it....period. If there are guns available, nuts will have some. If there are no guns available, nuts will build them. Precisely why chasing guns as the problem is ridiculous. Creating a defenseless populace should be criminal in itself.

I'm over my limit in wordiness....something I don't like much....but thought I would try to provide a little something constructive.

Good Luck......now your turn......you asked, now you provide what you think.

These idiots will fix nothing. Just some left wing feel good b.s. that will make law abiding gun owners life more difficult.


Lets knee jerk, take away a few more freedoms, put in a few more regulations/fees and do nothing.......just like most things done by our fine elected officials.

Seems that some sort of screening process to stop dimwits like him to purchase guns, or be issued a CWP, should be easy...but who's going to decide what goes in it, what's an automatic "denial" answer, and what "score" do you need to make to get one or both?

Background checks for every gun purchase should be a no-brainer...if you've been hospitalized as a nutcase, or have a bank robbery on your record, those are pretty obvious red flags that perhaps you ought not carry. However, even something as obvious and simple as that will come with a ton of opposition from the gun and ammo industry (aka, the NRA).

Getting guns back from the nuts? I have no idea how to do that.

The only way to make a difference at all beyond the obvious and easy background checks would be very strict "fukk this up and you lose your rights" laws...but setting the line where "this will cost you your rights" and "this will not" will be much harder than just having background checks. Eventually every nut that acts like a nut will lose their gun rights...but the 'act' that costs them could be a pretty heinous act and nothing we've said so far would stop that.

I think that as of now the only thing that can be done, and could be effective, would be making sure that all future sales were only made to people who can pass the background check, and eliminate the exceptions to having a background check, and have the background check include a "nutcase" check, not just a criminal record check.

These issues only are intended to address who does and does not have a gun and/or permit...the questions regarding what types of guns, ammos, and accessories anyone should or should not have are a totally different subject.

Fish on...

Todd

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/205660...trol-rage-video

He is a tool. Agreed.

Lets also just say that it is a good thing that everything that you and I say to ourselves isn't recorded and put on display on Youtube. Might just be some 'splainin' to do.

See, that's part of the problem, Hank...the correct answer should be "yes", but doing it is really, really difficult.

If we wait for them to go on a rampage, then say "there's a nut who shouldn't have a gun", then we're doing what we already do...and that clearly doesn't work or move us towards anything that would.

Fish on...

Todd

This is the world today. There are many people like him and probably many more than that, would he have said any of that if the shooting hadn't occured? This is today, not yesterday, not last year or a hundred years ago.

So where are the charges against David Gregory for possessing an "assault magazine" on TV on Meet the Press in Washington DC, where some of the nations toughest gun laws are in place?

Someone actually commits a crime and walks, while another person speaks on a subject and and suffers actual repercussions?

Media bias? Selective prosecution? Move along. Figments of our imagination folks. Don't look behind the curtain, as the puppeteers may get angry.

People convicted of a crime involving violence and those adjudicated as incompetent are already prohibited from possessing firearms according to federal law. The standard background check should and quite often does catch those things. Some of the other prohibited persons are harder to catch like those who use or are addicted to controlled substances, fugitives from justice, etc. As is continually illustrated though, crooks are good at getting guns regardless of the law.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/identify-prohibited-persons.html

We are never going to get all of the nuts in a screening process, but I am all for more stringent filters. They are an inconvenience for honest and responsible folks, but they will save lives. After the initial screening, you should be good to go until you do or say something stupid, like our boy in the video there. Once you have demonstrated your lack of worthiness or responsibility, privileges should be lost. Who gets to define stupid and what the revocation of privileges and reclamation of firearms involves seems like pretty tricky if not constitutionally invasive territory.

I am not necessarily against required registration and would even support some sort of competency/proficiency test prior to granting ownership. Again folks with good intentions really don't have much to fear other than more paperwork and time, neither of which is really a big deal in the end if you are buying a gun for the "right" reasons.

Couldn't have said it better myself Coley....you nailed it.
You touched on the nucleus of the problem within gun control debates. When it comes down to determining sensible solutions and drawing up the rules, where do you draw the lines between those who are allowed to possess versus those who are not allowed to possess, and how do you justify those decisions.

Unfortunately we live in a society where every decision made in good faith to protect someone or something ends up being litigated to death.

Some gun control advocates believe that just the fact that you want to own a gun means you are mentally ill.

And of course who is to say that at some point one becomes incompetent?
One too many tours in combat or too many years in the police force changes people. Divorce can change people. Medical issues can change people. Drug use (both legal and illegal) can change people. Loss of a loved one can change people. Oooo Laa Laa......lots of tangles. Lots of people in prison wanting revenge too.....All from the far right, of course.



Where's that hand-wringing emoticon?

Todd,

We won't agree on alot of things.. But dumbfuks will be dumbfuks, no matter of party or leaning. More laws won't fix dumbfukery, and most batshit crazy dumbfuks don't post threats on the interweb.. Except that gungrabbinging [Bleeeeep!] feinstein.

So no guns should be grabbed? How about a M79 grenade launcher? Or a LAWS rocket launcher?
Should 105 Howitzer be legal?
There's a line already drawn, why are assault rifles OK, but other weapons off limits?
What if we modified a chain gun to hunt varmints, would it be then OK to legalize that weapon for civilian use?

So why is it some weapons are illegal to own, yet others are OK?
Yet when the idea of putting assault weapons on the illegal side of the line invokes such a backlash.
Why not be outraged we can't own a M1A2 Abraham's tank?

'And of course who is to say that at some point one becomes incompetent?"

Keerist Olympia and the DC Beltway are full of those incompetents.

Some of them even qualify as "dumbfuks" like we have here asking inane questions.
Guess I'll go annoit the bore of my French 75 with a bit of oleo.