Home Off Topic

Can I be sickened and outraged at the same time?

1234568»

Replies

  • Billy No MatesBilly No Mates Posts: 3,187 Captain
    kellercl said:
    I flew many, many times before 9/11. Can't say I ever popped in the cockpit area.  This change was common sense and has zero implications in the travel process.  So forgive me for not understanding your point.  
    I think he is sarcastically suggesting you could have stopped it if you had just spoke up. At least it made me laugh.
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,750 AG
    kellercl said:
    I flew many, many times before 9/11. Can't say I ever popped in the cockpit area.  This change was common sense and has zero implications in the travel process.  So forgive me for not understanding your point.  
    mplspug said:
    We can still fly and nothing has been modified with the planes.  
    Vote for the other candidate
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,359 Admiral
    Closing the door is a modification?


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,750 AG
    edited January 2019 #215
    Since then, armored cockpit doors have been required in all aircraft.

    Guns, no changes.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,359 Admiral
    edited January 2019 #216
    Bump stocks are federally banned, so your statement is incorrect.

    Additionally we made it easier for the mental to purchase guns.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • Bimini TwistedBimini Twisted Posts: 11,444 AG
    No hearings, no studies, no change.
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,359 Admiral
    edited January 2019 #218
    Why is a bump stock ban considered "no change?"   For starters by definition it is a change, and secondly it is something people were calling for and thus received.  It is almost like you don't like your own regulation.


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • johnpowersjohnpowers BayPosts: 2,898 Captain
    Mister-Jr said:
    Since then, armored cockpit doors have been required in all aircraft.

    Guns, no changes.
    True. But it also has other consequences. 
    Remember this? The largest non-political mass murder in history,
    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/world/europe/germanwings-airbus-crash.html
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,750 AG
    Searching the World for answers ......
    Vote for the other candidate
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,750 AG


    December 18, 201812:14 PM ET

    The Trump administration is banning bump stocks, the firearm attachment that allows a semiautomatic weapon to shoot almost as fast as a machine gun.

    The devices, also known as slide fires, came under intense scrutiny after they were used by the gunman who opened fire on a country music concert in Las Vegas last year, killing 58 people.

    The massacre touched off a public outcry, including from some lawmakers, for the accessories to be banned.

    Under a new federal rule announced Tuesday by the Justice Department, bump stocks will be redefined as "machine guns" and therefore outlawed under existing law.

    The new regulations, which were signed by acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, will take effect 90 days after being published in the Federal Register. A Justice Department official said that would likely happen Friday.

    Current bump stock owners will have the 90 days before the new rule takes effect to either destroy the devices they own or turn them in to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

    Justice Department officials say they don't know exactly how many bump stocks are privately owned, but they estimate the number in the tens of thousands.

    The move has met with mixed reactions from gun rights groups. In an emailed statement, the NRA said it is "disappointed" that the new rule doesn't include an amnesty, which would have allowed people who bought the attachments when they were still considered legal, to keep them.

    Gun Owners of America went further, promising a lawsuit. In a statement, it called the administration's move "arbitrary," and an unacceptable reinterpretation of the federal laws against machine guns. In the past, the GOA has said that banning bump stock attachments could lead to the eventual banning of semi-automatic rifles.

    https://www.npr.org/2018/12/18/677788059/justice-department-bans-bump-stocks-devices-used-in-deadly-las-vegas-shooting

    Vote for the other candidate
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 11,543 AG
    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/world-report/articles/2017-12-15/2017-saw-boom-in-use-of-vehicles-in-terrorist-attacks
       Can we just start requiring people to have some sort of training and safety programs to make these things less lethal. 
       Shouldn’t there be laws concerning the horsepower and maybe something that disables the vehicle after it hits 2 or 3 innocents at least? Maybe make them less safe for everyone, so the bad guys will get hurt too.
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,750 AG
    dave44 said:
    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/world-report/articles/2017-12-15/2017-saw-boom-in-use-of-vehicles-in-terrorist-attacks
       Can we just start requiring people to have some sort of training and safety programs to make these things less lethal. 
       Shouldn’t there be laws concerning the horsepower and maybe something that disables the vehicle after it hits 2 or 3 innocents at least? Maybe make them less safe for everyone, so the bad guys will get hurt too.
    Let me explain something very obvious to you, again.  Cars are designed for transportation, guns are designed to kill.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • Bimini TwistedBimini Twisted Posts: 11,444 AG
    Why do those that voice such faith and regard for the Constitution, never allow any action relating to gun violence to get to the point where constitutionality can be adjudicated?


  • dave44dave44 Posts: 11,543 AG
    Mister-Jr said:
    dave44 said:
    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/world-report/articles/2017-12-15/2017-saw-boom-in-use-of-vehicles-in-terrorist-attacks
       Can we just start requiring people to have some sort of training and safety programs to make these things less lethal. 
       Shouldn’t there be laws concerning the horsepower and maybe something that disables the vehicle after it hits 2 or 3 innocents at least? Maybe make them less safe for everyone, so the bad guys will get hurt too.
    Let me explain something very obvious to you, again.  Cars are designed for transportation, guns are designed to kill.
    I’ll try to be careful explaining this to you. Terrorists are using vehicles because of their availability. Which makes them murder weapons.
      But all you care about is your agenda, which appears to be Venezuela- like. Are those citizens safer now that they gave up their weapons?
        The thing that remains constant through history and throughout the world is the concept that you can subjugate a population if you can disarm the population.
      That appears to be the endgame here too, you make no sense otherwise.
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,750 AG
    dave44 said:
    Mister-Jr said:
    dave44 said:
    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/world-report/articles/2017-12-15/2017-saw-boom-in-use-of-vehicles-in-terrorist-attacks
       Can we just start requiring people to have some sort of training and safety programs to make these things less lethal. 
       Shouldn’t there be laws concerning the horsepower and maybe something that disables the vehicle after it hits 2 or 3 innocents at least? Maybe make them less safe for everyone, so the bad guys will get hurt too.
    Let me explain something very obvious to you, again.  Cars are designed for transportation, guns are designed to kill.
    I’ll try to be careful explaining this to you. Terrorists are using vehicles because of their availability. Which makes them murder weapons.
      But all you care about is your agenda, which appears to be Venezuela- like. Are those citizens safer now that they gave up their weapons?
        The thing that remains constant through history and throughout the world is the concept that you can subjugate a population if you can disarm the population.
      That appears to be the endgame here too, you make no sense otherwise.
    There has never been a county in the history of civilization like America.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,010 AG
    Mister-Jr said:


    December 18, 201812:14 PM ET

    Under a new federal rule announced Tuesday by the Justice Department, bump stocks will be redefined as "machine guns" and therefore outlawed under existing law.

    The new regulations, which were signed by acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, will take effect 90 days after being published in the Federal Register. A Justice Department official said that would likely happen Friday.
    So, bump stocks were effectively banned?

    Confiscation is surely next.  Time to barricade ourselves in!  But not until that package from Brownell's arrives.

    Sarcasm aside, kudos for the current administration in their efforts.  A common sense step in the right direction and one I agree strongly with.  Bravo!
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 11,543 AG
    edited January 2019 #228
    Mister-Jr said:
    dave44 said:
    Mister-Jr said:
    dave44 said:
    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/world-report/articles/2017-12-15/2017-saw-boom-in-use-of-vehicles-in-terrorist-attacks
       Can we just start requiring people to have some sort of training and safety programs to make these things less lethal. 
       Shouldn’t there be laws concerning the horsepower and maybe something that disables the vehicle after it hits 2 or 3 innocents at least? Maybe make them less safe for everyone, so the bad guys will get hurt too.
    Let me explain something very obvious to you, again.  Cars are designed for transportation, guns are designed to kill.
    I’ll try to be careful explaining this to you. Terrorists are using vehicles because of their availability. Which makes them murder weapons.
      But all you care about is your agenda, which appears to be Venezuela- like. Are those citizens safer now that they gave up their weapons?
        The thing that remains constant through history and throughout the world is the concept that you can subjugate a population if you can disarm the population.
      That appears to be the endgame here too, you make no sense otherwise.
    There has never been a county in the history of civilization like America.
    I don’t know how many county’s America has, much less the world.
      But that’s the crux of it right? Every time it’s been done it was done wrong, and you think you have it solved this time, right?
  • mindyabinessmindyabiness Posts: 6,420 Admiral
    Mister-Jr said:

    There has never been a county in the history of civilization like America.
    I'm thinking about adding this to my signature line.....
    Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon... No matter how good you are, the bird is going to crap on the board and strut around like it won anyway.
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,359 Admiral
    Mister-Jr said:


    December 18, 201812:14 PM ET

    Under a new federal rule announced Tuesday by the Justice Department, bump stocks will be redefined as "machine guns" and therefore outlawed under existing law.

    The new regulations, which were signed by acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, will take effect 90 days after being published in the Federal Register. A Justice Department official said that would likely happen Friday.
    So, bump stocks were effectively banned?

    Confiscation is surely next.  Time to barricade ourselves in!  But not until that package from Brownell's arrives.

    Sarcasm aside, kudos for the current administration in their efforts.  A common sense step in the right direction and one I agree strongly with.  Bravo!
    They couldn't have been banned.  The peanut gallery has insisted no laws have been changed.


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,750 AG
    dave44 said:
    Mister-Jr said:
    dave44 said:
    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/world-report/articles/2017-12-15/2017-saw-boom-in-use-of-vehicles-in-terrorist-attacks
       Can we just start requiring people to have some sort of training and safety programs to make these things less lethal. 
       Shouldn’t there be laws concerning the horsepower and maybe something that disables the vehicle after it hits 2 or 3 innocents at least? Maybe make them less safe for everyone, so the bad guys will get hurt too.
    Let me explain something very obvious to you, again.  Cars are designed for transportation, guns are designed to kill.
    I’ll try to be careful explaining this to you. Terrorists are using vehicles because of their availability. Which makes them murder weapons.
      But all you care about is your agenda, which appears to be Venezuela- like. Are those citizens safer now that they gave up their weapons?
        The thing that remains constant through history and throughout the world is the concept that you can subjugate a population if you can disarm the population.
      That appears to be the endgame here too, you make no sense otherwise.
    I'm not important enough to have an agenda.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 11,543 AG
    Mister-Jr said:
    dave44 said:
    Mister-Jr said:
    dave44 said:
    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/world-report/articles/2017-12-15/2017-saw-boom-in-use-of-vehicles-in-terrorist-attacks
       Can we just start requiring people to have some sort of training and safety programs to make these things less lethal. 
       Shouldn’t there be laws concerning the horsepower and maybe something that disables the vehicle after it hits 2 or 3 innocents at least? Maybe make them less safe for everyone, so the bad guys will get hurt too.
    Let me explain something very obvious to you, again.  Cars are designed for transportation, guns are designed to kill.
    I’ll try to be careful explaining this to you. Terrorists are using vehicles because of their availability. Which makes them murder weapons.
      But all you care about is your agenda, which appears to be Venezuela- like. Are those citizens safer now that they gave up their weapons?
        The thing that remains constant through history and throughout the world is the concept that you can subjugate a population if you can disarm the population.
      That appears to be the endgame here too, you make no sense otherwise.
    I'm not important enough to have an agenda.
    There was a name for those people, what was it???
  • fins4mefins4me Posts: 14,487 AG
    .
    ALLISON XB 21,, MERCURY 300 Opti Max Pro Series (Slightly Modified) You can't catch me!!!
    "Today is MINE"
  • mplspugmplspug Palmetto FloridaPosts: 12,563 AG
    Mister-Jr said:


    December 18, 201812:14 PM ET

    Under a new federal rule announced Tuesday by the Justice Department, bump stocks will be redefined as "machine guns" and therefore outlawed under existing law.

    The new regulations, which were signed by acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, will take effect 90 days after being published in the Federal Register. A Justice Department official said that would likely happen Friday.
    So, bump stocks were effectively banned?

    Confiscation is surely next.  Time to barricade ourselves in!  But not until that package from Brownell's arrives.

    Sarcasm aside, kudos for the current administration in their efforts.  A common sense step in the right direction and one I agree strongly with.  Bravo!
    Bump stocks aren't in the Constitution

    Captain Todd Approves

  • AaronCannonAaronCannon Northwest ArkansasPosts: 866 Officer
    Love will find a way...
    The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.
    Jeff Cooper
  • NewberryJeffNewberryJeff Posts: 7,447 Admiral
    Mister-Jr said:
    Bigfish5 said:
    Mister-Jr said:
    kellercl said:
    So Florida increased regulation and yet the bank shooting still occurred.... 
    Then, we need to do something different.dave44 said:
    I think Mr says that as a start, we should restrict the rights of people based on age, then he said something about white people. 
       I’m sure it is only about money, however.
     
     
     
    Actually, white men with guns.  You know, mass murders.
    Mass killers are almost always white men. Here is something you should remember, I own you, gun or no gun.
    Whitey is underrepresented among mass murderers in America.  Can you name another race that is similarly less prone to mass murder?
  • bigfinn35bigfinn35 Sarasota/VenicePosts: 661 Officer
    bigfinn35 said:
    bigfinn35 said:
    bigfinn35 said:
    Mister-Jr said:
    kellercl said:
    Which is irrelevant to the point.  Parkland, Colorado movie theater, Sandy Hook and the recent  bank shooter...  they all showed signs, and we did nothing.  That is the point.  
    Sure we did, we let them have guns.  Mass killing always involves one thing, a firearm.
    Not true. There was a mass stabbing where two guys ran throughout a place in china and stabbed muliple people killing over 200 and wounding even more. So sorry that it doesnt fit your gun banning agenda but not all mass killings involve guns. Also what about explosions? Are those not capable of mass killings?
    Explosions are absolutely capable of mass killings. And as such, explosives are either illegal to make at home or impossible for the average person to buy. 
    And they still happen, so how well have those laws worked out? I can go down to the local academy and buy tannerite which is highly explosive. So clearly explosive control hasnt worked out all that well. 
    Why is complete and total success your metric for a law's validity? I'd challenge you to find any meaningful law on the books that is never broken. Seems like a silly way to judge things. Why bother having seat belt laws since some people aren't going to use them anyways, right?

    The point is that said laws cut down on the illegal activities. There are far, FAR fewer instances of murder using explosives in the US than there are with guns.
    Yeah there is far fewer because #1 its complicated to make a bomb. #2 its hard to make an explosion go unnoticed. Also explosions are generally used to make or cause a scene. Baseball bats and other blunt objects are pretty common to use in murders so why dont we have control for them. Look the point is we should look at the people who committing these atrocities rather then pointing fingers at guns. Because look at me I have quite a few firearms yet never committed a crime with them. So again I ask, why should my rights be restricted?
    They shouldn't be, nor would they be with tighter background checks, mental health exams before first-time purchases, and regulation of private sales. Which is all I've been advocating for on this entire thread. Going on the assumption that you're responsible and stable, your ability to buy a firearm would be unaffected.

    Yeah, explosives are way more loud and obvious that guns. But can you honestly say that there wouldn't be an increase in explosive-related murders if people had the same access to Semtex and hand grenades as they do to guns at the moment?
    In regards to your comment about explosives, I dont think there would be more murders with explosives as long as they went through the same process as gun buying. I really think people would accidentally start committing suicide because they buy a grenade and have no idea what they are doing. 

    Just so you are aware mental health checks with firearms is already a thing. I sell firearms with a large company and if you answer yes to certain questions, its an immediate denial. My other problem with enhanced checks is whats to stop them from saying that learning disabilities are mental health issues because with government over reach, I could see that becoming an issue. And as someone with three different learning disabilities, that might affect me directly. Yet I have a clear cut and very strict learning of firearm safety and responsibility. I would never commit any sort of unintended harm with a firearm. So thats my concern which is a legitmate one. I am 22 with 8 guns yet never had an issue and some people like me might run into the issue of "oh no hes got dyslexia, he cant own a gun" if there is enhanced mental health screenings. 
    While I understand that fear, is it based in any kind of precedent? Have learning disabilities counted as enough mental instability raise red flags on any background checks of yours or of others in the past?
    Paddle faster, I hear banjo music.
  • FlatsMatt96FlatsMatt96 ChuluotaPosts: 1,358 Officer
    bigfinn35 said:
    bigfinn35 said:
    bigfinn35 said:
    bigfinn35 said:
    Mister-Jr said:
    kellercl said:
    Which is irrelevant to the point.  Parkland, Colorado movie theater, Sandy Hook and the recent  bank shooter...  they all showed signs, and we did nothing.  That is the point.  
    Sure we did, we let them have guns.  Mass killing always involves one thing, a firearm.
    Not true. There was a mass stabbing where two guys ran throughout a place in china and stabbed muliple people killing over 200 and wounding even more. So sorry that it doesnt fit your gun banning agenda but not all mass killings involve guns. Also what about explosions? Are those not capable of mass killings?
    Explosions are absolutely capable of mass killings. And as such, explosives are either illegal to make at home or impossible for the average person to buy. 
    And they still happen, so how well have those laws worked out? I can go down to the local academy and buy tannerite which is highly explosive. So clearly explosive control hasnt worked out all that well. 
    Why is complete and total success your metric for a law's validity? I'd challenge you to find any meaningful law on the books that is never broken. Seems like a silly way to judge things. Why bother having seat belt laws since some people aren't going to use them anyways, right?

    The point is that said laws cut down on the illegal activities. There are far, FAR fewer instances of murder using explosives in the US than there are with guns.
    Yeah there is far fewer because #1 its complicated to make a bomb. #2 its hard to make an explosion go unnoticed. Also explosions are generally used to make or cause a scene. Baseball bats and other blunt objects are pretty common to use in murders so why dont we have control for them. Look the point is we should look at the people who committing these atrocities rather then pointing fingers at guns. Because look at me I have quite a few firearms yet never committed a crime with them. So again I ask, why should my rights be restricted?
    They shouldn't be, nor would they be with tighter background checks, mental health exams before first-time purchases, and regulation of private sales. Which is all I've been advocating for on this entire thread. Going on the assumption that you're responsible and stable, your ability to buy a firearm would be unaffected.

    Yeah, explosives are way more loud and obvious that guns. But can you honestly say that there wouldn't be an increase in explosive-related murders if people had the same access to Semtex and hand grenades as they do to guns at the moment?
    In regards to your comment about explosives, I dont think there would be more murders with explosives as long as they went through the same process as gun buying. I really think people would accidentally start committing suicide because they buy a grenade and have no idea what they are doing. 

    Just so you are aware mental health checks with firearms is already a thing. I sell firearms with a large company and if you answer yes to certain questions, its an immediate denial. My other problem with enhanced checks is whats to stop them from saying that learning disabilities are mental health issues because with government over reach, I could see that becoming an issue. And as someone with three different learning disabilities, that might affect me directly. Yet I have a clear cut and very strict learning of firearm safety and responsibility. I would never commit any sort of unintended harm with a firearm. So thats my concern which is a legitmate one. I am 22 with 8 guns yet never had an issue and some people like me might run into the issue of "oh no hes got dyslexia, he cant own a gun" if there is enhanced mental health screenings. 
    While I understand that fear, is it based in any kind of precedent? Have learning disabilities counted as enough mental instability raise red flags on any background checks of yours or of others in the past?
    No nothing that I have noticed. I have never been red flagged nor any friends or family members but I think it is something that the government might easily do. I only say this because they lump in learning disabled kids with mentally unstable kids sometimes in the public eduation system already. Thats on strong authority too. So when you put it on background checks and throw firearms into the mix, it makes all the much more plausible. I have had some customers receive immediate denials for unknown mental conditions. The few that I have had though never tell so I couldnt tell you what they may have been suffering from. Not legally anyways even if I knew. 
    If youre going to burn a bridge, dont just burn it, use C4 and make a statement. 
Sign In or Register to comment.