Man in Zorro Costume Detained Ahead of Chaotic Night at LAX

av8tr1

"Never tell me the odds!"
If it's a law that actually passes, then yes until overturned by the SCOTUS. But that is absurd, it won't happen.

The gun regs are already in place. Apples to oranges here.
Actually it already has. As @Lawman pointed out it happened with the Japanese during world war 2, and with many minorities up and till fairly recently. So based on your logic the Japanese should just accept that a bad law was passed and show up for incarceration. How about if we bring back segregation? Those were law on the books and supported by the Supreme court for a long time.

Were those good laws or bad laws?
 

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
Actually it already has. As @Lawman pointed out it happened with the Japanese during world war 2, and with many minorities up and till fairly recently. So based on your logic the Japanese should just accept that a bad law was passed and show up for incarceration. How about if we bring back segregation? Those were law on the books and supported by the Supreme court for a long time.

Were those good laws or bad laws?
Regardless of good or bad, people complied with them. That's the point. The pro-gun nutters need to unwad their underwear and follow the rules. Otherwise, they are not the law-abiding citizens their side claims to be. No different than the criminal with a sawed off shotgun. If it's illegal as deemed by the state, then it is illegal. Until otherwise overruled by a higher court or SCOTUS.
 

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
No one thought that all these anti gun laws would pop up either. Never say never.

As for marching down to the police station to register, I'd call you an idiot, and tell you to get behind me and all the others protesting. Just because it's a law doesn't mean a bad law has to be blindly followed.
Really? No one thought anti gun laws would pop up? I wonder what did it. Probably the mass shootings we have every other week in schools, malls, theaters, universities, etc.
 

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
No... No they aren't.

A crappy gun control law was passed after the fact effectively taking away a right. And they knew before hand what they were doing was at best questionable in constitutionality (kinda like Japanese internment). It now has to go to the Supreme Court to be overturned, but don't let that stop enforcement until then because even an injunction takes time.

The moral equivalency is exactly the same. After all, "if it saves one life," that's justification enough for you right? Well if we round up all the Muslims that will prevent the next Boston Bombing. There's absolutely no evidence proving it would but our feelings so it must be ok right?
False equivalency. Boston bombings was a one time thing by a bunch of teenagers who weren't even that religious. Do you really want to compare terrorist shooting deaths in the United States to supposed-would-have-been-law-abiding citizen mass shooter and their deaths? It's not even close. The country has a gun culture problem. There is no terrorist problem in the 50 states.
 

Lawman

Well-Known Member
False equivalency. Boston bombings was a one time thing by a bunch of teenagers who weren't even that religious. Do you really want to compare terrorist shooting deaths in the United States to supposed-would-have-been-law-abiding citizen mass shooter and their deaths? It's not even close. The country has a gun culture problem. There is no terrorist problem in the 50 states.
Muslim terrorists killed more people in 1 day in this country than all the "assault style rifles" have killed over the last 6 years....

Again, lock up/deport all the Muslims. Or the Black people. Either one would result in a greater reduction in criminal violence to the general population than California's new gun laws. Your measurement for fairness is the rights of the general population to not live in fear, well it would result in less deaths by homicide in general not just guns. They wouldn't be constitutional either but hey "if it saves one life."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
Muslim terrorists killed more people in 1 day in this country than all the "assault style rifles" have killed over the last 6 years....

Again, lock up/deport all the Muslims. Or the Black people. Either one would result in a greater reduction in criminal violence to the general population than California's new gun laws. Your measurement for fairness is the rights of the general population to not live in fear, well it would result in less deaths by homicide in general not just guns. They wouldn't be constitutional either but hey "if it saves one life."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
19 foreign terrorists did that, not Americans. Lock up Muslims here will result in a greater reduction in criminal violence compared to CA's gun laws? What's your source/evidence?

And since you seem to be wrapped over the Muslim/terrorist issue, lets talk about what we did AFTER 9/11 to prevent it from happening again.... formed TSA, formed DHS, hired a lot more air marshals, armed pilots / FFDO program, airline "strategy" changed, behavioral-based profiling at airports, body check scanners and machines. That's just off the top of my head.

Guess what we've done about preventing mass shootings...... diddly squat.
 

av8tr1

"Never tell me the odds!"
Guess what we've done about preventing mass shootings...... diddly squat.
Look at all the the EU has done to prevent mass shootings. Guns are near completely outlawed for the common public and yet look at what happened. All those laws did "diddly squat". All you got was a bunch of unarmed citizens who could only cower in fear as they were shot by people who were not supposed to have guns.
 

Lawman

Well-Known Member
19 foreign terrorists did that, not Americans. Lock up Muslims here will result in a greater reduction in criminal violence compared to CA's gun laws? What's your source/evidence?

And since you seem to be wrapped over the Muslim/terrorist issue, lets talk about what we did AFTER 9/11 to prevent it from happening again.... formed TSA, formed DHS, hired a lot more air marshals, armed pilots / FFDO program, airline "strategy" changed, behavioral-based profiling at airports, body check scanners and machines. That's just off the top of my head.

Guess what we've done about preventing mass shootings...... diddly squat.
Chattanooga... San Bernardino... Orlando... Ft Hood... Boston Bombing....

Every one of those mass shootings involved Muslims. In fact not all of them involved assault weapons but they all involved Muslims. So if your problem is mass shootings and murder committed against civilians just trying to live there lives....


You don't get to pick and choose when we decide to honor our commitment to freedom and the constitution and when we don't. You sit here trying to rationalize a national strategy of disarmament similar to Europes... Well that didn't stop any of the attacks in France this year.


In fact our "strategy" for defending another 9/11 involved arming pilots. DHS was merely putting existing agency's under one house. The TSA is theatre and has been demonstrated time and time again to be a failure (kinda like signs saying "no guns") but armed pilots and air marshals carrying guns... That's a strategy apparently.

Wonder why you keep demanding we do the opposite by creating more and more places where people cannot defend themselves or preventing movements to fund and expand armed responders in those areas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
Look at all the the EU has done to prevent mass shootings. Guns are near completely outlawed for the common public and yet look at what happened. All those laws did "diddly squat". All you got was a bunch of unarmed citizens who could only cower in fear as they were shot by people who were not supposed to have guns.
Terrorists have been an exception. Other than that, most EU countries don't have a gun problem like we do.


Chattanooga... San Bernardino... Orlando... Ft Hood... Boston Bombing....

Every one of those mass shootings involved Muslims. In fact not all of them involved assault weapons but they all involved Muslims. So if your problem is mass shootings and murder committed against civilians just trying to live there lives....


You don't get to pick and choose when we decide to honor our commitment to freedom and the constitution and when we don't. You sit here trying to rationalize a national strategy of disarmament similar to Europes... Well that didn't stop any of the attacks in France this year.


In fact our "strategy" for defending another 9/11 involved arming pilots. DHS was merely putting existing agency's under one house. The TSA is theatre and has been demonstrated time and time again to be a failure (kinda like signs saying "no guns") but armed pilots and air marshals carrying guns... That's a strategy apparently.

Wonder why you keep demanding we do the opposite by creating more and more places where people cannot defend themselves or preventing movements to fund and expand armed responders in those areas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, I don't think too highly of the FFDO program. Many reasons. And by "strategy" in quotes I meant the crew response to certain events, or our mentality if you will which changed after 9/11. If you work for a 121 airline, you probably know what this is implying.

How could I forget the biggest one, the Patriot Act. Who cares about rights, when safety trumps all, right? How many people protested against the Patriot Acts and the snooping rights it gave the government?

You're actually making my point. Did the religion kill the people? Or did the gun? It was the gun, in the hands of nutbags. Islamic terrorist, or mentally sick, whichever label you'd like to describe someone in the United States who uses a gun and commits a mass shooting.

Europe hasn't completely disarmed. Plenty of countries allow responsible ownership and people have guns there.
 

av8tr1

"Never tell me the odds!"
Terrorists have been an exception. Other than that, most EU countries don't have a gun problem like we do.

You're actually making my point. Did the religion kill the people? Or did the gun? It was the gun, in the hands of nutbags. Islamic terrorist, or mentally sick, whichever label you'd like to describe someone in the United States who uses a gun and commits a mass shooting.

Europe hasn't completely disarmed. Plenty of countries allow responsible ownership and people have guns there.
Really? Are you just picking and choosing the facts you use? Ignoring all the ones that don't fit your objective?

How about all the bombings in the middle east. Almost on a daily basis. So how legal is it for the public to get explosives. Yet still happens every....single.....day. With scores killed. Explosives are outlawed for just about everyone. Yet still people get access to them to take innocent lives.

How about the recent knife attacks all over. How about the one in June in Japan, 19 killed. Or Kunming with 29 civilians dead and over 130 injured. Or London 1 dead 5 seriously injured. Should we ban assault knives? Anything longer than 3 inches? Anything with a serrated edge.

These laws you ask for only make people defenseless. It isn't the tool, its the person. That gun doesn't go off on its own. A nut bag is going to kill regardless of the tool he/she has at hand.
 

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
Really? Are you just picking and choosing the facts you use? Ignoring all the ones that don't fit your objective?

How about all the bombings in the middle east. Almost on a daily basis. So how legal is it for the public to get explosives. Yet still happens every....single.....day. With scores killed. Explosives are outlawed for just about everyone. Yet still people get access to them to take innocent lives.
Bombings in the ME are happening in what have become lawless lands with radicals and religion involved which is compounding their situation. Compare us only to first, world, orderly, developed countries please. And compare us to legal gun-owning countries in Europe.

How about the recent knife attacks all over. How about the one in June in Japan, 19 killed. Or Kunming with 29 civilians dead and over 130 injured. Or London 1 dead 5 seriously injured. Should we ban assault knives? Anything longer than 3 inches? Anything with a serrated edge.

These laws you ask for only make people defenseless. It isn't the tool, its the person. That gun doesn't go off on its own. A nut bag is going to kill regardless of the tool he/she has at hand.
Knife attacks aren't as common as gun attacks in gunner countries. That's the difference. And I'd rather face a guy with a knife versus a guy with a gun any day of the week.

See, your side *ALMOST* admits the problem when they go on the "it isn't the tool, it's the person" statement. But then you can't bring yourself (nor can your side bring itself to admit) that the person IS the problem, because someone people don't use reason, because some people are mentally sick, and some just want to watch the world burn........ but to your side, these people still have a constitutional right to obtain guns. If gun laws don't work, it's only because your side isn't willing to help find a solution. They become part of the problem. And we can also walk around the topic all day long, but a gun's primary purpose is to injure/kill. Hunting, self defense, most uses. Sure, there's the range firing, skeet shooting, target shooting, but the ultimate point stands.

And yeah, I think knives longer than 3 inches are banned on airplanes.
 

av8tr1

"Never tell me the odds!"
I agree 100% that the person is the problem. I said it very clearly in my post. So now we agree that Guns are not the problem. Progress!!! Outstanding!

I agree 100% that some people should not have access to guns. Look at that we agree on two major points!!! People in Hell are suddenly finding it a bit chilly.

I also agree that there should be laws against certain people from having guns. Holy Crap!!!! Thats 3 things!!! Dogs and cats living together mass hysteria!!!

Oh but wait.....we already have laws against those people from having guns.......hummm......Let me see, we have laws that prohibit certain people from having access to guns because they are crazy or criminal. Yet those people still get them and commit atrocious crimes against law abiding citizens.

But we can't know if someone is crazy or planning to commit a crime until they do. As far as I know my local police department hasn't gotten the budget to staff that "Pre-crime" department. But I hear that crystal ball is on the truck from Amazon right now. Oh and there is that pesky "innocent until proven guilty" thing......

So now what?

I know lets make more laws because it the criminals didn't take those first laws serious. We'll make it double criminal for those people to own or access guns. We are super serious this time. Surely they will pay attention to those laws NOW!!!


While we are at it lets make sure that the people who should own guns CAN'T. You know those law abiding citizens. Becasue they can't be trusted to own guns. I mean they have never broken a law yet. But its just a matter of time before they do. You can always tell the law breakers. It's all about the distance between the eyes. Have a little ruler to carry around with you.

Know what the definition of insanity is........feel like we are doing the same thing over and over again and expecting something different?

( Dam, got a Bill Murray AND a George Carlin quote in there!! Go me! ) :bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:
 
Last edited:

Lawman

Well-Known Member
So then, if we don't allow foreign Muslims into the country, no problem right?
What's funny is he doesn't get it.

70% of the homicides committed in this country are done by people with felony records who can't be legal gun owners, so of the ~10000 homicides yearly committed with guns (including mass shootings) a complete prohibition on civilian firearm ownership nets us a roughly 3000 total people who couldn't have been killed with a gun. That figure also exists in a vacumn where the homicide rate doesn't suddenly increase because of the tens of thousands of people every year that stop a crime with a gun.

So effectively deporting all the Muslims and banning them from coming in would save as many lives as banning all the guns in this country....

Like he said he's game till the Supreme Court decides that's unconstitutional right? So everybody who is Muslim your taxis will be starting at 0800 1 October to take you to the airport. After all if it saves 1 life?.....
 

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
So then, if we don't allow foreign Muslims into the country, no problem right?
The horse is already out of the barn - 9/11 was a unique attack. You won't see 4 planes commandeered again.

I see where you two are trying to go with. But the terrorist problem is not the epidemic problem that is the mass shooting problem. We had people take over planes, and the entire country changed. Even the constitution was bent. Measures like stop and frisk, if you were black or brown, you could be stopped without reasonable or probably cause and "checked out" by a local police force. The Patriot Act also skirted some very fine edges too. Thing is, the country came together and both sides D&R decided to do something about it.

I'm not saying take your gun away. I'm saying lets find a way and stop the nutjobs (mental sick problem) people from getting guns legally. There's got to be a way to work that in the legal framework that keeps both sides relatively at peace.
 

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
And here's how you know we have a gun culture problem:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mp-40-cent-soaring-demand-mass-shootings.html

Smith Wesson sales up 40% after a shooting.

" In the wake of the massacre at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, sales of high-powered automatic rifles soared.

One Georgia gun seller saw 35 AR-15s - the semi-automatic weapon used in the Orlando shooting- fly off the shelf in a span of three hours. Typically, the store sells just two per day. "




THAT is a gun culture problem. It's no longer self defense, or hunting, or target shooting, or even hobby purpose. This is an out-of-spite purchase because "OMG! Obama is gonna come in a black helicopter and take our guns!" Or, "I better get that AR before the state bans it." Really?

This is a gun culture problem. Obama was right, people really do cling to guns and religion.
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
I'm not saying take your gun away. I'm saying lets find a way and stop the nutjobs (mental sick problem) people from getting guns legally. There's got to be a way to work that in the legal framework that keeps both sides relatively at peace.
There's no perfect solution though. Much like keeping those with DUIs from driving a car. You can suspend or revoke their drivers license, so they legally can't drive a car. But that won't physically prevent them from driving a car if they so desire and get the keys or possibly even steal one. Laws will only do so much against someone hell bent on breaking them or with no respect for them.
 

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
There's no perfect solution though. Much like keeping those with DUIs from driving a car. You can suspend or revoke their drivers license, so they legally can't drive a car. But that won't physically prevent them from driving a car if they so desire and get the keys or possibly even steal one. Laws will only do so much against someone hell bent on breaking them or with no respect for them.
The penalty should be harsh - maybe that will deter a little bit more. IMO, anyone drunk that kills someone else innocent in a car wreck should be 25 to life. Period. Instead, we have "afluenza" , people getting off on probation, or a minimal sentence.
 

Lawman

Well-Known Member
And here's how you know we have a gun culture problem:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mp-40-cent-soaring-demand-mass-shootings.html

Smith Wesson sales up 40% after a shooting.

" In the wake of the massacre at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, sales of high-powered automatic rifles soared.

One Georgia gun seller saw 35 AR-15s - the semi-automatic weapon used in the Orlando shooting- fly off the shelf in a span of three hours. Typically, the store sells just two per day. "




THAT is a gun culture problem. It's no longer self defense, or hunting, or target shooting, or even hobby purpose. This is an out-of-spite purchase because "OMG! Obama is gonna come in a black helicopter and take our guns!" Or, "I better get that AR before the state bans it." Really?

This is a gun culture problem. Obama was right, people really do cling to guns and religion.
Umm.... The entire state of California has banned the sale of the AR-15 pattern rifle along with hundreds of other "assault style weapons" despite the fact they killed less people than hammers last year. Mass's attorney general announced through the offices opinion and without any legal ruling that those rifles are now illegal for sale in the state. And yet they kill less and less people every year (Nationally) despite millions more being available and in circulation since the ban expired in 2004.

Remind us again how they aren't coming to take the guns?
 
Top