I'm a gun owner and I want gun control

[SecularMotion]

(CNN) -- So how does a 17-year-old get ahold of numerous guns? According to news reports, John David LaDue allegedly possessed one, along with several other firearms. Police say they were part of the arsenal (which included illegal homemade bombs) that he allegedly planned to use to slaughter as many students as he could at his high school in rural Minnesota.

Thanks to a civilian tip and good police work, we narrowly escaped another mass shooting.

A friend of mine predicted that the United States would suffer probably 10 such shootings in 2014. I didn't want to believe him, but I knew it would be true.

It turns out we will suffer far more than 10. We've seen a shooting where an assailant targets multiple people somewhere in this country every week this year, according to the website Shootingtracker.com. Only a small number -- such as the recent FedEx shooting in Georgia, or those at Fort Hood, Texas, or Jewish facilities in Kansas -- will gain national attention.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/02/opinion/omara-minnesota-guns/

[gejohnston]

1. We already have gun controls

the issue is to what degree. Where did this 17 year old get his guns? Not legally under federal or Minnesota law. Let the cops and the ATF investigate and report back on how he got them. I'm guessing at least three will in NCIC as reported stolen.

[Duckhunter935]

2. so he wants to modify the second amendment

never says how. States how the first amendment has limits and that is true. So does the second, I will bet the 17yo was not allowed to have those weapons and I am sure they will find out how he got them. It also was not legal for him to make bombs but he did that too.

Americans are fiercely independent, sometimes to a fault, and we bristle at any effort seen as trampling our inalienable rights. But the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution have never been unfettered. Each amendment in the Bill of Rights has spawned a legacy of case law that interprets, defines, refines and restricts our basic freedoms based on the values and needs of the people at the time.

The courts have ruled the second is an individual right and there are many restrictions already. Full auto weapons, short barreled weapons, hand guns/pistols, criminals, spouse abuse, age

A gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen is the perfect, unassailable instrument for self-defense and for the protection of one's family. To tell someone who is acting reasonably and rationally that they have to give up that right is unfathomable to the responsible gun owner. That's why gun rights advocates have such a negative response to any perceived restrictions on gun ownership: They know, without question, that they will only use their weapon properly.

I would like to hear his ideas but they were lacking as to specifics and I doubt they would have prevented any of this.

[stone space]

26. We could always replace it with this:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

I think this would be an improvement over the current wording of the Second Amendment.

[Duckhunter935]

27. You are free to try

I am not holding you back. Then the owning and regulation of weapons will go back to the states. I think that would make a nice new amendment though.

[Jenoch]

32. "Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States

or by any State on account of sex."

What does sex have to do with it? I don't care what kind of sex people do. You surely mean't gender.

[stone space]

33. I'm probably the wrong person to ask, if you object to the wording. I didn't write it.

That is the wording that my state (Iowa) ratified back in 1972, however.

[Jenoch]

34. I don't necessarily blame you.

Using the word sex instead of gender has bugged me for a while. I find it slightly annoying at a checkout express lane that reads "15 items or less" when it should be "15 items or fewer".

As to the real topic of the thread, I believe in UBC as long as there are exemptions for family members as long as the person acquiring the gun is not otherwise banned from ownership. I also wish to allow a non-family member but hunting companion to be allowed to 'borrow' my gun.

[Ghost in the Machine]

30. "I will bet the 17yo was not allowed to have those weapons and I am sure they will find out how he

got them."

I haven't looked up MN State laws, but I'm sure he could legally possess rifles. He just couldn't legally *buy* them. Handguns are a different story, though.

The article I read didn't mention any specific weapons found, other than bombs: http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/ap_news/politics/article_6776b00d-1509-5bed-9f09-784f08f25788.html?sourceurl=homepage&sourceblk=newest

I had three long guns when I was 16 years old. An old Mossberg .22 for plinking and squirrel hunting, given to me by my father, who got it from his father when my dad turned 16, a 12 Gauge shotgun for rabbit & dove hunting and an 8mm rifle for deer hunting. I could also go to the hardware store in town and buy ammo on my own. Our deer season was only 2 weeks long, with a 1 deer bag limit. Many of us hunted before and after school, and it was nothing to see cars and trucks in the school parking lot with deer rifles locked up in them. NOBODY, that I know of, ever had any thoughts of shooting up the school. I don't recall there ever even being an incident where anyone used a gun during a fight at school. The only incident with a weapon that I recall is one guy hitting the school bully in the face with a shovel near the end of "Building Trades" class. ( slightly off topic, but the bully wound up getting killed in a bar a few years after he graduated, picked on the wrong person... and the guy who hit him with the shovel is Chief of the Fire Department ).

Now, as for handguns... in my state, you have to be 21 to buy a handgun, but you can possess one at 20 years old if it was a gift, an inheritance or just belongs to someone over 21 and you have permission to use it.

Peace,

Ghost

[gejohnston]

38. Under federal law

have to be 21 to buy handgun from FFL
have to be 18 to buy from an individual
have to be 18 to possess without supervision or written permission from parents.
Plus, MN has a purchase permit system.
http://mn.gov/elicense/licenses/licensedetail.jsp?URI=tcm:29-3984-16&CT_URI=tcm:29-117-32

[Ghost in the Machine]

40. Thanks for the info, gejohnston! N/T

[Thinkingabout]

3. Responsible sensible gun are not the problem. The non sensible owners who

Intimidate others by wearing a visible in public is a problem. First it indicates to me someone who is not stable. The NRA is not responding properly and we are seeing the results of irrational behavior. If the NRA would return to teaching safety it would be a good start to return their reputation to good standing.

[gejohnston]

4. while I agree with you about the jack ass in Georgia

but open carry in general isn't to intimidate anyone, although it does have that same effect. Although, it was banned (to carry loaded) in 1967 California when racist cops felt intimidated by the Black Panthers, and banned in Florida in 1893 because some white people had a problem with African American migrant workers open carrying.
That doesn't mean I support open carry outside of rural areas either. I simply think it is dumb for several reasons.

The current NRA would not exist if the prohibition lobby like Bloomberg didn't exist. HCI etc were quite open about gun prohibition in the 1970s calling registration and licensing simply a "good first step" to that end. That caused the NRA and allies to me equally as extreme after supporting or at least being neutral about the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act.

[Thinkingabout]

5. I would venture to say further if the black and brown folks was carrying

Open weapons up and down the roads as the whites are doing it would be a band. If black and brown was shooting up kids and adults in schools, shopping centers, theaters or any other public place it would bring outrage and there wouldn't ld be gun control. BTW I am white but know the answer would be different. The same would happen in the Bundy case.

[gejohnston]

6. Funny thing about the Georgia play ground

Two ladies were interviewed. There was a white woman who was very bothered by it and an African American lady who said basically, "if the just sat down and watched the game while it was in his holster, no body would care."
I don't know where you grew up, but I don't buy the we are just as racist as we were 70 years ago meme. It could be that growing up in a rural area, all of the brown and black people have as many guns as the white people.
If a black guy showed up to a rally with an AR and a pistol, the only people would freak would be the media zooming in on the weapons and say it was a white racist toting them. How do I know this? Because they did. I didn't agree with him showing up to a political rally armed, nor do I agree with him or the other Tea Party people with him on the issue they were protesting. The media was wrong to do that.
From the pics the Bundy scene, about 1/3 of the armed protesters look Hispanic and Native American.
As for Bundy, there are no good guys.
Bundy was wrong in telling the BLM to fuck off 20 years ago.
The BLM showing up with armed people on a noncriminal issue was wrong
The BLM rounding up the cattle inhumanly with assholes on ATVs instead of having professional cowboys do it was wrong.
The NYT editing his interview to make him sound more racist than he actually might be was wrong.

That isn't to say I agree with Bundy or his cause (because I don't) it is there are principles that should trump party, ideology, or anything else.

[Thinkingabout]

7. By past responses I make my judgement. There are some still ranting about the

Black panthers showing up at polling places. As far as there it being 70 years to overcome the racists responses, for some as we have seen and heard in the past few weeks are still in a transition period.

There won't ld not have been rounding up of cattle if Bundy paid his grazing fees.

[gejohnston]

8. showing up to polling places with

any kind of weapon or means to intimate is a federal crime and they should have been prosecuted just as if it were a bunch of white guys. I didn't say racism doesn't exist, simply that I don't buy claim that most people are racist or motivated by racism. While racism does, unfortunately, still exist it is not a uniquely white thing. Living in Japan for over three and half years, taught me what it was like to be a racial minority if a very racist society.

Actually, the BLM told the 54 ranchers that each ranch could only put 150 cows there in the area, far fewer than to sustain the businesses. The other 53 complied and went under. Bundy told them to screw off. The situation is more complex than either ideology makes it out to be.

[Thinkingabout]

9. What makes Bundy so special?

[gejohnston]

10. I didn't know he was

I don't think so.

[Thinkingabout]

11. if he decided screw you on the number of cattle grazing on public lands and 53

Others complied and went under, what makes Bundy special and entitled to take and not pay. He is a taker, every American is not entitled to take what we please.

[gejohnston]

12. How did he screw me?

I don't own the land. If I did, I would not remove the cattle in such a inhumane manner either. His cows did not prevent anyone else from using it. The rule was not made by We the People through our elected representatives. It was a decision the BLM made on their own.
He was wrong but is no excuse for BLM's conduct either. There was no justification for the BLM's conduct of aiming weapons at unarmed protesters, and threatened to kill anyone who stepped out of a "first amendment zone" if those reports are true. Not only did that violate peoples' rights, it attracted the armed protesters. Occupy was squatting on public parks, but that didn't justify NYPD to show up with machine guns and launch tear gas into peaceful protesters.
It wasn't about paying, it was limiting the number that could be in the area based on questionable science. That questionable science on how the cattle affected the desert tortoises screwed 53 families out of their homes and businesses. So basically, the State took away the businesses without pay.
So MSNBC and progressive talk radio is freaking about some old Mormon rancher doing basically the same thing Occupy did. Let's face it, expressing anti Mormon bigotry won't get you fired from MSNBC, which is one of the reasons I detest them. His cows did not prevent anyone hunting, fishing, hiking, doing anything else. In terms of "screwing me" he isn't as much as pot growers who I call the tie dye Kochs. Why? Not only do they grow on public land without permission, they pollute streams with toxic waste, booby trap the area and open fire on any hapless hiker who stumbles across it. So, they screw me more than Bundy, and there are more of them.
Should some hiker shoot back and kill one of these assholes, do you think Mike Malloy or Thom Hartman would take the side of the innocent hiker defending himself from the freeloading pot grower? No. I'm sure it would be quite the opposite.

[Starboard Tack]

13. Hold on, you are now defending this racist POS Bundy? WTF

And calling pot growers "freeloaders". How are they freeloading? By growing something?

[gejohnston]

14. did you read the whole thing

or just skim it and missed the context?
I'm simply saying the rules should apply to people I don't like as much as people I do. I believe in defending the rights of people who I don't like as much as I do of those who I do. It is called actually believing in principles and putting them before ideology or party. It reminds me of a conversation I had with Hoyt some time ago when he defended Larry Cooper shooting Sam Weaver in the back with a sub machine gun. Hoyt had the fucking balls to say it was a good thing because he was going to grow up to be like his dad. That is unAmerican, illiberal, and disgusting.
In a nutshell, if I must explain what is always wrong no exceptions:
machine gunning fleeing 14 year olds in the back (didn't happen in Nevada, but back to Hoyt)
LE aiming guns at unarmed protesters
herding cattle in a inhumane way using assholes on ATVs
so called first amendment zones
destroying the private property of the person you are collecting the debt of
setting up sniper positions and sending people armed with automatic weapons for a civil debt.
Editing tapes and transcripts to distort or change what someone said, especially to make the person more vile than they may be.

I don't call that defending Bundy or any other individual, I call that being a liberal, not a faux liberal (who preaches diversity and tolerance as long as you aren't Mormon, evangelical, rural west or south. If you are, let the bigotry run wild. In case you haven't noticed, I don't like faux liberals any more than I do neo cons and the assholes at Fox.) who believes in the US that the founders envisioned.

And calling pot growers "freeloaders". How are they freeloading? By growing something?

You didn't read the whole thing in context did you? Did you see the link? Obviously not. I was referring specifically those who grow on public land. If Bundy is a freeloader for grazing without paying the fee, what are these assholes who grow on public land without paying a dime? Not only are they not paying a dime, they poach, they don't give a shit about chemical fertilizer in the water, booby trap areas near their groves, and shoot at people who stumble on them. So, not only are these people free loaders on public land, they are greedy sociopaths who are a threat to public safety. So, why are you defending greedy sociopaths like the tie dye Kochs?
I am totally OK with responsible pot growers who use their own property and don't set booby traps. However, they don't pay taxes either.

[Starboard Tack]

21. I don't have the connectivity to follow links all the time

So I rarely bother clicking on them. I'm more interested in what members have to say than what they found on the internet. I can do my own research if necessary.
You didn't mention booby traps and pesticides, just growing pot. I don't see growing pot as a bad thing, whether the land is public or private. Protecting it with guns and booby traps is a whole different ball of wax.
Bundy, as I see it, is a racist freeloader, who is now threatening journalists, as well as cops. I have little sympathy for him.
I have no interest in discussing other DUers, unless they are posting in the current thread.

[gejohnston]

24. and doing them on public land like national forests

So they are growing on public land, including national parks, booby trapping them. That makes them freeloaders as well as sociopaths.

As for Bundy, the full interview is over three minutes, while NYT edited out half of it. While the edit made him out to to a god awful racist, the full version makes him sound like a black conservative like Thomas Sowell or Bill Cosby. Given the James O'Keefe edit job (not to mention NBC's edit job that got it fined by the FCC and will be lining Zimmerman's pockets) and my general low opinion of the media's competence and integrity, I have to question the racist charge. He might be a racist, he might not be. The only evidence is a James O'Keefed video and the piling on by anti Mormon bigots like Mike Papantonio. When something becomes politicized, I discount most of what I read and see from either the left or right. While he might be a racist, but it has nothing to do with the larger issue. That doesn't mean I like racists or racism, because I don't. I also don't like race baiters who accuses everyone they disagree with as being racists.

My complete quote about tie die Kochs

In terms of "screwing me" he isn't as much as pot growers who I call the tie dye Kochs. Why? Not only do they grow on public land without permission, they pollute streams with toxic waste, booby trap the area and open fire on any hapless hiker who stumbles across it. So, they screw me more than Bundy, and there are more of them.

The link is simply an Alternet post that mentions it. When you can, look up "pot growers public land"

[Starboard Tack]

36. I'm sure there are some rascals out there growing pot and polluting and carrying guns

But growing a weed on public land, in and of itself, is a benign act. Cannabis will grow virtually anywhere on the planet.

[gejohnston]

39. so are herbivores eating grass

but in this case we are talking about two invasive species in North America. One is owned by mostly peaceful people who pay taxes. The other doesn't pay any taxes, and will kill anyone who gets in the way of their money. Any invasive specie needs to be held in check (or in Florida's case, eradicate). We are also talking about people who are willing to kill to protect their profits. Just like the average street dealer will kill you if you rip them off become a threat to their freedom or profits. They are not just a few rascals, they are the norm. They are the reason game wardens even in Wyoming started carrying guns in the past 35 years. Before I joined the Air Force, when a WFGD officer stopped you to inspect the dead deer in back of the truck, he or she approached your usually unarmed even though he knew you had at least one high powered rifle. They are the reason game wardens in California have to operate in infantry fire teams with automatic weapons and camouflage. Please spare me the "nice peaceful" canard.

Wild horses are the only invasive specie that I know of that has any legal protection. So are you saying that I should be able to plant corn, which is at least a native specie, on public land?
Or are we talking about a double standard for a favored industry or flame bait? I suspect the former.

[ileus]

15. I want gun control too.....my guns my control.

safety first, willing victim never.

[Logical]

17. Don't talk much progressive democratic stuff I notice. nt

[ileus]

19. I'm about as progressive as they get...

especially on the 2A.

[Starboard Tack]

22. You mean "regressive"

There is nothing progressive, nor liberal about your position. You fool nobody except yourself. Safety first means keepingmyour guns locked up and away from your little kids, not teaching them about the importance of the double tap.

[Logical]

23. 80% in here, I think I get your passion! it's not progressive. nt

[SQUEE]

31. labels and such

your brand of progressive is obviously misnamed.

I have long decided people like you are not to be allowed to decide my level of dedication to cultural progress. I reject your tiny and limiting label of progressive and liberal thought.

[Logical]

35. LOL, would love to hear the work you do for the cause. nt

[SQUEE]

37. No, no you wouldn't

And honestly I will not play your little game of better Democrat, I am quite comfortable with my level of commitment to the part, and to my community.

[Eleanors38]

16. Anti-gun propaganda about a BOMB BUILDER!

And even that explosive fact was tucked into a parentheses!

I congratulate the investigators for stopping this accused b-o-m-b-e-r.

[Straw Man]

18. So George Zimmerman's defense attorney ...

... is now lecturing us on gun control? The irony is piled so high that I scarcely know where to begin.

[gejohnston]

20. how is that ironic?

The lawyer is the employee of the client, and represents the clients interests and in no way represents his views on anything. Ones right to a fair shake in the system does not depend on how much we like them, even when that dislike is justified or simply smeared by the media or has the wrong world view. There was a time only right wingers disagreed with the "everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise" but I see that beginning among progressives as well, a trend I find disturbing.

[Straw Man]

25. I meant that, as per your last point, ...

... Zimmerman and anyone who defended him, even in a professional context, are anathema to the hardcore anti-gun element on this board. It's also ironic that O'Mara, whose work on the Zimmerman case brought him into the national spotlight and his CNN gig, is now using his bully pulpit to preach gun control.

[leanforward]

28. I'll support you on that.

It may be interpreted as a right. But, likewise I have my right to go forth in supposedly civil society without fear of being caught in a cross fire. It is flat wrong for anyone to intimidate anyone else because of their fear of being wronged. If you're in a hostile environment, get the h#$% out. Don't make it worse.

[oneshooter]

29. What gun control laws would you support? I for for would like to know. n/t

[SFangel]

41. when the article says "A friend of mine predicted that the United States would suffer probably 10"

which is a very scientific data already, followed by "It turns out we will suffer far more than 10" the reader expects more info on more mass shootings and not something your paralegal wrote in some class.
Do you even read the stuff you post?