Is the right to bear arms outdated.

[Danimal W]

Mr Craik,

Please double check your facts. The ATF IS part of the DOJ.

The ATF still authorized those purchases. There is an acting director and has been. This person is doing all of the role as a confirmed director.

Therefore once again, your argument blaming the NRA is invalid.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Jack, a well thought out and presented post, which certainly makes sense to me.
Thanks.

Jim, Australia now has more guns than before they were banned. True we have not had a massacre since they were banned but we have had plenty of shootings, armed robbery's and home invasion has increased dramatically.
Banning guns has not worked, and I think there is IMHO enough evidence to suggest, it would not work in America either.

 

[Jim Craik]

Mr Craik,

Please double check your facts. The ATF IS part of the DOJ.

The ATF still authorized those purchases. There is an acting director and has been. This person is doing all of the role as a confirmed director.

Therefore once again, your argument blaming the NRA is invalid.

Danimal, thanks to the NRA, we ABSOLUTLY do not have an acting full time Director of the ATF.


B. Todd Jones, the U.S. Attorney for Minnesota, and acting Director was nominated by the president Wednesday for permanent director of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
The former U.S. Marine may be heading into a firefight.
No one has been confirmed as director of the $1.12 billion agency since its law enforcement functions were split off from the U.S. Treasury Department in 2006 and the position was made subject to Senate approval. The gun lobby has objected to every nominee, including the choice of former President George W. Bush.

********************

The current acting Director of the ATF Mr Todd Jones, already has a full time job, he is US Attorney for Minnisota. He has only been a part time Director, commuting from Minnisota.

 

[Larry L.]

Well, I see on the news that another loon has chosen to take advantage of the 'fish-in-a-barrel' targets provided by the "GUN-FREE zone" laws. This time at Lone Star College in Houston.

The "gun-free zone" laws are truly 100% EFFECTIVE in 'protecting' the public, aren't they? But, will the anti-gun left now push to repeal those? Oh, of COURSE not. Instead they'll DEMAND that all guns be taken away from law-abiding people.

I wonder which of the prominent anti-gun agenda pushers will be the 1st to get his/her face in front of a T.V. camera.

 

[Jim Craik]

Larry, you are right.

The only workable "gun free zones" are Airports.

There are way too many guns for there to be any other "gun free zones".

You have a choice, all schools can have airport style security with all that incredable cost, or we can get rid of the guns.

 

[Larry L.]

Larry, you are right.

The only workable "gun free zones" are Airports.

Really?

Los Angeles airport shooting kills 3 - CNN

(I chose to provide a link to CNN on this 'cause I figured you'd believe their report.)

 

[Jim Craik]

Larry, you know very well I was speaking about inside the Airport security area, not at the ticket counter.

But once again, you have shown just how dangerouse and unstoppable guns are.

The NRA keeps saying the answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun..........

As you know, here is plenty of armed security in Airports, yet just like at Comlumbine and VT, armed security guards came too late to stop the killing! DUH!

Gun fights in crowded places.............Is this your idea of success?

The guns must go!

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

SIGH...........:dead::dead::dead::dead::dead::dead::shrug:

 

[Larry L.]

I think I'm going to throw in with you, Pete!

 

[Jim Craik]

Jim, Australia now has more guns than before they were banned. True we have not had a massacre since they were banned but we have had plenty of shootings, armed robbery's and home invasion has increased dramatically.
Banning guns has not worked, and I think there is IMHO enough evidence to suggest, it would not work in America either.

Pete, help me out here.

Earlier, you said that the gun ban did not work because rape and home invasion crimes were way up in Australia. You said they were way up because since they took away the guns, the criminals felt safe, knowing the person was not armed.

Now you say that actually the the number of guns has gone up since the ban.

OK Pete, what is it, you can't have it both ways.

Are these crimes up because of the lack of guns or are they up because there now are more guns than before?

You seem to be cherry picking data and trying to make it fit your views, regardless of the facts. Could that be true?

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Jim, I will make it clearer for you. The number of guns in the hands of criminals
Is higher than before guns were banned. According to an article in the Brisbane courier mail a couple of weeks back. They called for another amnesty so people could hand in their ILLEGAL guns without prosecution. Obviously BANNING FUCKING GUNS HASN'T WORKED, in this country.
Don't believe me google it. I'm sick of your distortion and twisting of what people say to suit your beliefs Sir.
I'm over this subject, that is my last comment.

 

[Dave Hood]

Jim, I agree with you that guns are out of control in this country. The NRA is, in my mind, doesn't represent the views of most gun owners. Not to mention that they have a very poor sense for public relations.

The unfortunate truth, however, is that with more than 200 million guns floating around in the US, it's way too late to take the guns away. As much as I like the idea in theory, it won't work in practice. The criminals will always be able to access guns. Should we stop selling more weapons like the AR-15, improve background checks and not give guns to people with a history of mental illness? Absolutely. But I think the real way our government can make a difference is to pass very harsh penalties for anyone who uses a gun to commit a crime. They also need to enforce the laws that exist today.

Take the unlikely example of Saudi Arabia. There are almost no gun laws there. People can purchase automatic weapons with no problem. They can carry them in public. But last year there were fewer than 150 gun murders in the entire country. Why? Because people know that if you kill or even injure someone with a gun, you will either be put to death or spend the rest of your life in a prison so bad that execution would have been the preferred option.

 

[Tom P]

Jack,

The US has the third largest population in the world, There is no doubt that there are lots of folks with mental and emotional problems, there are also lots of folks on all sorts of drugs.

Your list proves that gun owning Americans are totaly unable to keep guns out of the hands of troubled folks and people die daily!

Jack, since we can't get rid of trouble folks and we are unable to keep guns out of their hands, the only answer is to severly limit the number and types of guns available.

Now this will take time, but as guns become fewer and fewer, and the consequences of being caught with one get harsher, their street value will go up and their availability will go down.

The sooner we start the sooner the slaughter will slow!

So, you think it would be easier to confiscate 270,000,000 firearms (you've said "all" guns a number of times) rather than keep them out of the hands of mentally unstable people that number in the thousands. Hmmmmmmm.

 

[Jim Craik]

Tom, how about we do both?

Dave, I always wondered why a person who shoots at someone and missed, is treated differently than someone who shoots and kills? Shouldn't they be treated the same?

 

[Steve]

Dave,

Don't try to reason with Jim, it doesn't work. He has an opinion and, as he's stated before, liberals are generally smarter than the rest so therefore his opinion is correct (in spite of all the well-represented facts that have been presented here).

BTW, it's Minnesota, not Minnisota......

 

[Tom P]

Tom, how about we do both?

Dave, I always wondered why a person who shoots at someone and missed, is treated differently than someone who shoots and kills? Shouldn't they be treated the same?

No, Let's take care of the mentally impaired, we'll keep our guns and you can find another noble cause.

 

[Bob Fechter]

Speaking of unstable people;

Do Shootings Prove Liberalism is a Mental Illness? :: ConservativeVideos.com

 

[John Milmont]

Jim, I agree with you that guns are out of control in this country.

Was there a time when guns were not "out of control" in this country? If so, when was this?

 

[Jack]

Dave,

Don't try to reason with Jim, it doesn't work. He has an opinion and, as he's stated before, liberals are generally smarter than the rest so therefore his opinion is correct (in spite of all the well-represented facts that have been presented here).

BTW, it's Minnesota, not Minnisota......

Alright guy's. Enough.
Jim is really a fine gentleman that strongly voices his opinion. I do respect his right to do so. I also strongly disagree with his views, however, I for one will not be upset by his postings. Personal attacks resolve nothing.

 

[Jim Craik]

Thank you Jack!

I'm planning on going down to see Pat and the Rolex24, next year (2014), I would be honored to by you a drink.

Take care my friend!