quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

Well, not all white men, but I consider country music an American White Men thing! It takes a thick white southern accent to sing a proper country song doesn't it?

There are always exceptions to genre.

No, it doesnt, there have been country singers from northern states, Canada, Australia and the UK.

Again, do you practice being this ignorant or is it natural?

Back in the late 70s-early 80s, there was a VERY popular country singer (more a cross-over, really) from Brooklyn, U.S.A.

He was of Irish ancestry. Y'all might know him as Eddie Rabbit.



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

that's odd. ive only been to Missouri once and only briefly---but I don't recollect anyone with a southern accent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

Well, not all white men, but I consider country music an American White Men thing! It takes a thick white southern accent to sing a proper country song doesn't it?

There are always exceptions to genre.

No, it doesnt, there have been country singers from northern states, Canada, Australia and the UK.

Again, do you practice being this ignorant or is it natural?

Back in the late 70s-early 80s, there was a VERY popular country singer (more a cross-over, really) from Brooklyn, U.S.A.

He was of Irish ancestry. Y'all might know him as Eddie Rabbit.



Michael

"Country" music is a style genre. For example, excellent Russian country music.

http://natashaborzilova.com/bering-strait-days/

Don't let me get started on the Welsh Rockabilly sub genre of country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

I think a good gun control is compromise is limiting the number of guns a person can own. And there should be a National registry so all gun shops would have access to it to know if this man reached his gun buying limit and can't get anymore! The amount of guns he had is abit insane! On top of that, I was reading articles that the gun shops who sold him guns denied that anything they sold him was capable of the damage that shooting did. They all claim he got it modified elsewhere. And if he did, who does these modifications? Are these modifications legal?

I mean seriously, how many different type of guns does one person need for day to day protection?

I own a total of 73 guns, and I'm a freakin liberal. All legal, and registered to me. My father was an avid collector, so I got his toys when he passed.

And every time some damn foreigner says 'Americans have too many guns', I feel like buying a new one.

But do you have to collect guns that can actually "shoot"? Couldn't they just look exactly like guns but cannot work practically? I mean, why do you need soooo many guns that work?

If it's just for display and collection and appreciation of it's beauty?

It's not like you actually play with all 73 of them regularly!

And anyway right. I come from a country with zero gun ownership and zero mass gun shooting incidents. It actually works to prevent such things from happening. That's the practical reality of it!

So if you are really feeling sorry for the country music festival folks, can't you sacrifice your guns a little to prevent another such a mass massacre again?

I am just suggesting a compromise. This gun registry limits each person to 3 guns maybe. And the rest of the guns, they gotta buy dummy guns, if they want more for beauty and collection.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

FR:
I think maybe, in some ways, this man is a physical manifestation of the intentions of the left for the right.

You think the left want to mass murder the right? Really?

Personally, I think the radicals of either side are just two sides of the same coin, but I've never considered that the average Democrat and the average Rebuplican wished harm on each other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

Why again are people allowed to own guns like this?

Or any guns at all?

This shooter was not in the military, if only the well regulated militia clause was enforced, this horrible shooting would not have occurred.

There are a few reasons.

1. An armed populace is a last resort against tyranny.

2. Police have no obligation to protect the individual unless a "special relationship" exists.

3. The U.S. is so huge that a police response can be hours away in case of trouble.

4. The Constitution of the U.S. was written by people that not only allowed citizens to keep arms but in that day even required it.

Assault rifles are not completely banned but required to be licensed and permitted. The background check for an automatic firearm is as extensive as one for getting a Secret clearance. And a $1200 fee for each and every transfer combined with a 4-10 month wait for permission to transfer makes Class III firearm ownership something only serious collectors do.

But, there is a black market for illegal firearms and you can get an illegal machine gun (according to my policeman neighbor) cheaper than you can legally get one.

In the big picture, U.S. Citizens who have not had rights curtailed by conviction of a Felony nor been adjudicated by a court as mentally unfit, have a right to keep and bear arms.
Note the "citizens", "conviction" and "adjudicated by a court". This is an issue of "due process" and certain states confiscating private arms based on someone swearing out a bond (accusation but no conviction of domestic abuse, etc.) is being tested in courts.
The type of arms a private citizen may keep have some limitations and you have to get specific permission and pay a tax for the permit to keep a "NFA Firearm". If it isn't a single shot weapon, auto-loading is fine, of the appropriate barrel length and configuration, it is an NFA firearm and requires specific permission and permitting. Furthermore, no permission or permitting will be forthcoming if there are state or local laws prohibiting the person applying from owning the firearm.
On the "bear" portion of the second amendment. There are local laws that specify, for the public safety, where the right to bear arms may be safely invoked. Schools, courts, government buildings are usual places where individual arms are forbidden. In my local jurisdiction, if a business posts a sign at the entrance saying "no firearms" or an ideograph to that effect (circle slash over a handgun is common) it is now a crime to carry a firearm on their premises.

I'm probably wasting my efforts illustrating how the U.S. is not the unregulated wild west that totalitarian touting media wants you to believe. But those in foreign countries, California, Chicago, and New York haven't been exposed to the reality of private firearm ownership that the bulk of the U.S. has been.

Not entirely, at this point, I'm a bit curious about the 2nd Amendment supporter mindset. Clearly, banning all guns would prevent at least some innocent people from dying, but I do think the framers of the Constitution did put a lot of thought into it, though I don't understand why the well regulated militia part of the 2nd Amendment is totally ignored by the right. It seems like his number of guns would have set off some red flags his CO might have had to address. Why does anyone need more than two? I can get needing a backup in case of jam or something, or even preferring a few different types, but this was not this guys situation. Someone that owns guns needs to have a CO, that can refer them to a psych hospital, if necessary, period. Why is it they don't allow me to drive without proper training, and licensing, insurance, and registration? I tend to think if cars had been invented in the 1700's, driving would have been a constitutional "right" instead of the "privilege" it is now, but most people want to restrict this to people that are responsible. Why is it that restricting gun ownership to those that are responsible is such more of an issue?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

Going to give this my best shot. (Didn't mean for that to be a bad pun.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura
Not entirely, at this point, I'm a bit curious about the 2nd Amendment supporter mindset. Clearly, banning all guns would prevent at least some innocent people from dying, but I do think the framers of the Constitution did put a lot of thought into it, though I don't understand why the well regulated militia part of the 2nd Amendment is totally ignored by the right.

My thought on this is that we must consider that the Amendments were not only about the limitations of government power, but also a reinforcement of rights of individuals. Both must be considered.

While it is inescapable to ignore the statement of "banning all guns would prevent at least some innocent people from dying," it also ignores the concept of "banning all guns would also allow some innocent people to die."

quote:

It seems like his number of guns would have set off some red flags his CO might have had to address.

I don't mean you any personal offense. If you are using the term 'CO' to imply such a relationship as someone's Commanding Officer, I'm having difficulty grasping how you really think that works. Unless registration for firearms would be reported to a person's military association, (a frightening thing when considering an individual's privacy all on it's own) how do you propose this would work? Would you be suggesting that military personnel should have fewer individual rights than those not serving in the military?

This might seem frivilous coming from somebody who is *just* a military wife, and I'll apologize for being blunt, but this isn't how this works. You'd be flipping amazed at how little CO's know about the people under their command.

quote:

Why does anyone need more than two? I can get needing a backup in case of jam or something, or even preferring a few different types, but this was not this guys situation.

Old joke. A bear, a rabbit, and a human. No matter which two you consider, you'll end up obliterating the rabbit, p^ssing off the bear, or not being able to deal with the critical thinker. This doesn't even consider areas like collector's pieces, historical, target shooting enthusiasts, etc.

Granted, this was not this guy's situation. How do you propose that we regulate people who DO fit that criteria vrs those that don't?

quote:

Someone that owns guns needs to have a CO, that can refer them to a psych hospital, if necessary, period.

Again, this isn't how this works. Put it in perspective. Do you see this as a great plan that is working in any other area when it comes to military personnel? Is it working for traffic tickets, DV situations, people with PTSD, drug use, (that didn't pop on the whiz quiz) delinquent library books, or anything else.

quote:

Why is it they don't allow me to drive without proper training, and licensing, insurance, and registration?

Just so you know, this isn't an iron clad argument. Unless I've missed something, all of the weapons used in the incident are being reported as legally purchased. I haven't seen anything yet that says otherwise. "Training" an individual in proper firearm use doesn't stop the person from misusing the weapon any more than the method you are extolling prevents people from driving drunk. We don't prevent all people from driving, even though we know there are going to be a certain number of DUI arrests each year.

quote:

I tend to think if cars had been invented in the 1700's, driving would have been a constitutional "right" instead of the "privilege" it is now, but most people want to restrict this to people that are responsible. Why is it that restricting gun ownership to those that are responsible is such more of an issue?

There are two categories for this. Those having conditions that preempt their ability to drive and those who have proven they should not be trusted because they have been irresponsible about driving. How do you propose we handle the latter? How can any solution a person can come up with *not* penalize those who shouldn't be restricted?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

So I guess the fact that some have guns to actually hunt, deal with various predators and pest species that inhabit the rural region they live in, OR have an interest in their historic value never crossed your fucking mind?

Seriously, wild hog eradication is a booming business around here.

Yes, I do own two weapons that require special permits from the ATF, but my primary interest is their historic significance (that and they never caught the giant Armadillo that was attacking lone star beer trucks, distributors back in the seventies, and I figure the critter will eventually develop a taste for better alcoholic refreshments.)

Of course there are plenty of perfectly reasonable legitimate reasons why someone might own firearms. For instance, farmers need firearms to control various pests, collecting weapons is a perfectly respectable hobby, hunting is a popular pastime. As far as I know, no one advocates a blanket ban on all weapons for all people.

According to The Guardian:
"3%: Proportion of people who own half of the country’s guns, according to an unpublished Harvard/Northeastern University survey result summary. Anchoring this group are America’s gun super-owners – an estimated 7.7 million Americans who own between eight and 140 guns."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/us-gun-control-ownership-violence-statistics

Collectors aside ( and please remember that collectors don't need their collections to be in full working order, it might be an idea to consider having the firing pins removed from most of the collection), I cannot think of a single reason why a person needs to own up to 140 fully functional firearms.

News reports indicate that the Las Vegas murderer is part of this demographic. It seems to me that an awful lot of people are dying to protect and preserve the rights of that 3%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Why? The ACLU is an organization the protects 1st Amendment Rights. The NRA is an organization that protects 2nd Amendment rights. Do you think the ACLU should police what people are going to say?

Because the second amendment that they are protecting is the cause of this massacre. So they should take some responsibility on making some recommendations on how such things can be prevented since their job is to make sure everyone coexist with guns happily.

And also, how is US suppose to protect themselves from Islamic Lone Wolves who is gonna stock pile weapons and plot to kill alot of people when more and more Lone Wolves like this dude is gonna have clean records and be very good at covering their tracks?

"The Right to Bear Arms" doesn't specifically say "The Right to Bear any kind or any amount of Arms" right? There could be more control.

Maybe even semi-automatic should be ban.

PS: You know the situation with Terrorist using Trucks? You know what our country is doing in response? Despite not having our first terrorist car or truck ramming yet. We are putting bollards everywhere now on any potential vehicle ramming area.

The point is, something has to be done to prevent the next one!

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

that's odd. ive only been to Missouri once and only briefly---but I don't recollect anyone with a southern accent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

It really isn't even so inconceivable that he got really drunk and it just seemed like a good idea at the time.

Actually, I find that quite plausible. Perhaps: Booze, plus some gripe that had put him in a bad mood that night particularly ... on top of many years of growing misanthropic anger.

Went drinking with 20 guns, get real.

Eh? You mean that he'd have been too concerned about safety to drink?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

Isn't it interesting that Crocodile Dundee rants ad infinitum about "leftist fuckwits" until we have a gun thread.


then he BECOMES ONE.[sm=happy-smiley58.gif]

quote:


He didn't take 20 guns to his room to drink.
Again was he drunk out of his mind or the cold killer .

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44



last point---there ARE black country singers.

If you don't like Charlie Pride, there's something wrong.

Yep.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I inherited 3.
Don't carry any.
According t5o you there goes my limit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
No they aren't any more than the truck which killed 60 in France was the cause of what happened.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I inherited 3.
Don't carry any.
According t5o you there goes my limit.

I mean we need to look at this logically. Do people use ancient inherited guns to go do mass killing or do they buy spanking latest technology new weapons?

There is no way you can go into homes and confiscate whatever guns people currently have now.

But you can start a new policy to restrict each person to 3 guns purchases nation wide, moving forward.

Whether 3 guns or 5 guns. I think if someone is going in and buying 20 to 50 guns, something is going on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
What good would limiting to 3 or 5 lifetime purchases do? Three are as dangerous as 20.